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 edit warring / 3RR warning: Unnecessary as the user has warned many other users about edit warring, so they are very familiar.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[1]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:diff
Comments: Good evening. I recently made a major edit on the articleWe Are Family (album) and provided reliable sources to support each claim on the page. Less than hour after the edit is made, my edits were reverted byUser:Binksternet and then I received an accusation on my talk page. They accused me of "edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages" which iscompletely false. After I debunk that accusation, I added my edits back to the page and again they were reverted. Information including the album's chart achievements, Grammy nomination, promotion campaign, tour, etc. were all erased byUser:Binksternet. In their revision edit summaries, they referred to my edits as "AI-written trash" and "AI hallucination" which is very insulting to me because I spent a lot of time going through Billboard magazine articles, online newspapers, etc. and gathering this information. What happened toWikipedia:Assume good faith,Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary,WP:DONTBITE?
I accused Sackkid of using AI tools resulting in hallucinations, but Sackkid denies such tools. If that's true, Sackkid is misrepresenting the sources, purposely putting wrong information into the topic.Binksternet (talk)15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might be stating the obvious as your first statement is correct and perhaps intentionally just addressing this specific concern. But: Edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HelloSackkid, thank you very much for starting a discussion about this atTalk:We Are Family (album) § February 6, 2026. Assuming that the AI claims are incorrect, I understand that they are upsetting but please ignore that aspect for now. Your position will be best if youfocus on content in that discussion despite any biting, attacks or whatnot. Be strong and ignore such distractions if possible; take them toWP:ANI if you absolutely have to but don't expect much from that approach.
The most productive part of the entire encounter is the content aspects of the discussion on the article's talk page. Everything else is secondary distraction.
Please keepWP:ONUS andWP:BURDEN in mind, both of which prohibit you from restoring the disputed content before the discussion has come to a conclusion. You may later (not exactly now but when the discussion starts running in circles) need athird opinion.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He was not discussing it on the talk page until I brought this to the ANI notice. Furthermore, none of his claims are true. And there is still the matter of throwing around slanderous accusations without assuming good faith, talking to me, or even verifying the facts. All of this is easily traceable.Sackkid (talk)23:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a person labeling someone else's contributions as "ANItrash" not an insult, especially when they never bothered to read the sources provided. I can't build a consensus with someone who wants to remove that, which is why Wikipedia labels that as disruptive editing. I clearly debunked all of his claims on thearticle's talk page. He just refuses to acknowledge that he never bothered to read the sources. For example, why remove the Grammy nomination when it was sourced? Why remove chart positions when it has been sourced? Why remove listicles when it was sourced? He never bothered to read any of them and that's why he removed them and then summed it up as "AI-written trash" and "AI hallucination".Sackkid (talk)04:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is sanctionable edit-warring behavior, even if it is true. Talk-pages are the place to post your evidence, let others post their evidence (including third-parties, not just you two), and then everyone can see and help make sense of it. as ToBeFree said, this page here is not for resolving content disputes or behavior concerns other than edit-warring. The best outcome is that everyone starts discussing on the talk-page, which is exactly what seems to be happening.DMacks (talk)05:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user left a "disruptive behavior" message on my talk page. This time for content that was properly sourced.I restored part of the content that was actually sourced Wikipedia states "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." along with examples. None of that fits my behavior but it does fit User:Binksternet's behavior. My edits were reverted four times, although not in a 24 hour timeframe. My contribution edit was sourced and he reverted it.
Once again, User:Binksternet only responded on the talk page (after several days later) once the sourced information was added back to the page.Sackkid (talk)21:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another user restored the sourced content in the header paragraph of the same article. Once again, User:Binksternet removes it from the header of the article.
@Daniel Case: Close the subject. It's clear that this is just politics. Someone calls another user's edits as "trash" and nothing is done about it. Just close it and move on.Sackkid (talk)04:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I (involved) want to add that unforgvn20 has engaged at talk and provided reliable independent and secondary sources to support some of their changes. During talk Ecrusized has not focused on the content.
At some point, the potential COI needs to be addressed. I have not seen any strong evidence of this aside from the SPA claim. However, looking at their contributions I am not certain it is an SPA. I do not think writing solely about topics related to your home country constitutes an SPA. unforgvn20 appears to have written about topics not related to Gülen movement, but maybe someone more familiar with Tukery can find connections I am unaware of. Of course it is possible that anyone is being paid to edit an organization's WP page, but without any evidence PAID is irrelevant. I still AGF for unforgvn20.
there are many articles that I edited that are totally irrelevant to the movement , the reason I focused on the movement is due to high number of inaccuracies
@Unforgvn20: Saying thatyou don't have a COI, and that you've edited articles not related to the Gülen movement without providing any evidence is not going to help your defense. If you have aCOI, you're required todisclose it. Can you name a few articles you've edited outside of this topic? Can you explain why you are repeatedly removingGülen movement's terrorist designation from the infobox of that page?
How do you explain the addition ofpromotional images to several articles, such as theposter of a movie that dramatizes the purged members of the movement, you've added this with the description:
Exodus, an award winning movie focusing on the stories of a group of people forced to flee Turkey to seek asylum in Europe post 2016 coup attempt.
Anon-informative selfie of a person who allegedly died in prison, described as:
Gökhan Açıkkollu, a teacher from a Gülen-affiliated school died in police custody after being imprisoned and tortured for 13 days post 2016 coup attempt.
Anon-informative image of a NBA player, who has been a declared member of the movement for years with the description:
Enes Kanter Freedom openly expressed his support for the Gülen movement
There is also the usage of first party sources owned by movement, such as the "stockholmcf.org". There is the removal of sources that criticise the movement.[8],[9],[10] There is also the issue ofWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, after myself and user Czarking0 agreed to partially restore your edits, and remove the parts that violate NPOV, you have mass reverted the pageGülen movement to its old revision, restoring all of the NPOV content that I've mentioned above.
This is going too far. A lot of this is disagreement over content rather than conduct. Unforgvn20 has provided reliable, independent, and secondary sources for why the information requires more context than can be provided in an infobox. You have repeatedly said the images are promotional without providing any reasoning for why. The battleground accusation is ridiculous. They have done a much better job engaging at talk than you have as they have provided sources and focused on content while you double down on accusations with no evidence or reasoning for your position.Czarking0 (talk)15:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is less a defense of Urforgvn20 than an attack of you. If you continue your battleground behavior and edit warring you may be blocked.Czarking0 (talk)15:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint doesn't seem to have anything to do with edit warring (on Unforgvn's part). Per your own recent comment on the talk page,"I will not discuss content changes here with Unforgvn20, since it has a clear undisclosedWP:COI with this organization"[11] I have not looked into the COI matter, and I have no interest in the article subject so I don't intend to. But it seems to me that if you have sufficient evidence of that, this should be taken to an appropriate board (ANI?), as the unwillingness to collaborate with them is a problem.LordCollaboration (talk)16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The editor performed a blanket revert of highly sourcedKNBS census data and administrative facts regarding the formerRift Valley Province.
Crucially, this revert was done while aThird Opinion request was active. The editor deleted a **formal compromise proposal** (the "Bridge" model) which I introduced to balance the geopolitical scope with geographical accuracy. This proposal included:
A refined Lead Paragraph distinguishing the 8 core highland counties from associated Rift Valley counties (Laikipia/Nakuru).
A "dual-reporting" Infobox structure for Population (8.86M core vs. 11.9M total) and GDP to maintaindata integrity.
A dedicated "Geopolitical Classification and Disputes" section** containing sourced evidence from Governor Susan Kihika and other leaders.
This is not a revert in the usual sense; it is a restoration of the mutually agreed version of the article. You made extensive revisions without prior consensus, primarily on the basis that Laikipia was part of the former Rift Valley Province. While that is historically accurate, it is not the relevant context for this article.
The counties associated with the Mount Kenya region originate from three different former provinces. Your citation confirms Laikipia’s placement within the former Rift Valley Province, but it does not establish that Laikipia is excluded from the Mount Kenya region.
The revisions went far beyond a minor adjustment — they altered the structure, statistics, tables, terminology, and overall framing of the article. Such comprehensive changes should have been discussed and agreed upon beforehand.
The 8.86M population and GDP figures are based on officialKNBS andConstitution of Kenya data. The 9-county count is an unofficial geopolitical grouping with no primary source.
The Compromise: I did not "exclude"Laikipia; I introduced a "dual-reporting" structure and a "bridge" model to satisfy both the geographic facts and the geopolitical association.
Proposed Lead Paragraph:
> TheMount Kenya region, colloquially referred to asMlima inKiswahili language orMurima (meaning "The Mountain" inKikuyu), is ageopolitical, cultural, and economic area located in the central highlands ofKenya surroundingMount Kenya. Geographically and historically, the region's core consists of eight highland counties: the five counties of the formerCentral Province (Kiambu,Murang'a,Nyeri,Kirinyaga, andNyandarua) and the three counties of Mount Kenya East (Meru,Embu, andTharaka-Nithi). WhileLaikipia is geographically situated and administratively governed within theRift Valley region, it is often geopolitically and economically associated as a bridge betweenRift Valley andMount Kenya bloc. The area's major urban centers includeThika andRuiru. As of 2025, the eight core highland counties have an estimated population of approximately 8.86 million.
Proposed Infobox & Data Structure:
> Maintain a dual-reporting structure for Population (8.86 million 2025 estimate) and GDP. This identifies the 8 core highland counties (the most verifiable geographic facts) while explicitly stating that others are geopolitically associated. This avoidsOriginal Research regarding "membership" while satisfying the article's geopolitical scope.
Administrative Accuracy and Area Rankings:
The editor's revert restored a "Counties of theMt. Kenya Region (Ranked by Area)" table that is geographically inaccurate. It attempts to mergeLaikipia County into a highland area ranking despite it being situated in theRift Valley. This undermines the structural integrity of the article and ignores the administrative and geographic reality established by theConstitution of Kenya and KNBS. The revert removes my contributions towardfactual data and replaces it with a grouping that has no official basis.
Disruption: The editorAnyrmson performed a blanket revert of these sourced compromises and deleted the "Geopolitical Classification and Disputes" section—containing sourced local opposition from Governor Susan Kihika and other leaders—while a formalThird Opinion mediation was active. Further made changes onthis revision claiming to avoid one-sided biased reporting.
HIM: "This undermines the structural integrity of the article and ignores the administrative and geographic reality established by the Constitution of Kenya and KNBS."
Response: TheConstitution of Kenya and the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) do not define regional boundaries. They outline the former provincial structure and the current administrative framework (counties and national government). Therefore, citing them does not directly address the scope of this article, which concerns a geopolitical region rather than an administrative unit.
HIM: "The 9-county count is an unofficial geopolitical grouping with no primary source."
Response: There is no officially gazetted government classification defining the members of the Mount Kenya region. If the nine-county grouping is considered unofficial, the same applies to any alternative eight-county formulation. The article already cites multiple sources that include Laikipia within the Mount Kenya region in various contexts.
Restoration request: The article should remain in the neutral version previously agreed upon atWP:ANI until consensus is reached through further discussion.
Issue identified: The core disagreement appears to stem from conflating provinces (former administrative units) with regions (broader geopolitical or socio-economic groupings), which are not equivalent concepts.Anyrmson (talk)13:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Both Anyrmson and MTLNORG arewarned forlong-term edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you edit the article again without first getting a talk page consensus for your change.EdJohnston (talk)20:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:[18]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[19]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to ip user talk page:[20]
Comments: Fairly straight forward 4RR vio (and attempting game the system). I tried to reach out to this user with alengthy and inforamtive comment on their talk page. Theyresponded with a rather curt and belligerant reply:Report me all you want. I get blocked, I will make a new account.". As shown with these edits and comments, this user is intent on making their change with no regard for policy, and such, made their most recent revert just outside the 24 hour window, and did so while logged out (that revert was theonly edit for that ip account). -\\'cԼF19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What Wolf fails to acknowledge is the edit they made was incorrect. I have even provided Wolf with news reports of the Decommissioning ceremony of the USS Key West as proof their edits are incorrect.~2026-10340-72 (talk)00:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least can take this as a tacit admission that the ip edits were in fact made by this user (Thooshe). That said, the only edit(s) I made were to revert the errors you made, (taking the article back to QUO) that were not properly sourced, which I noted. I then went even further (out my way some would say) to provide you with the information you need,as in need to read and learn, so that you can make proper edits going forward, with a "welcome" template, and then a detailed, personal note on your talk page, with useful links, and that served as an opening for a dialogue. The dialogue you failed to seek when you were first reverted. -\\'cԼF06:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant here. Just because I came across one of your errors, does not mean I need to reviewevery edit you've ever made to look for other errors. It is not my job to clean up after you. -\\'cԼF06:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant as the service life is based on the date of commissioning to decommissioning. Not commissioning to stricken date. The USS Key West was commissioned on 12 September 1987 and decommissioned on 22 July, 2024 which makes makes the Time in Serve 36 years, 10 months and 10 days. You keep changing it back to the Stricken date of 12 September 2025.
Now I offer this as a first person account because I not only Served on the USS Key West, I was at the decommissioning ceremony. Not everything can be sourced. Case in point, there are no sourceable records of the the Key West winning the Battle E or the "Top Torp" championship in 1992. Nor can you prove that the picture of the USS Key West at periscope depth is actually the USS Key West.~2026-10340-72 (talk)16:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said it's not relevanthere. And "I wuz there!" does not work in your favor, as spelled out in theguideline I had already cited for you. One of the many you clearly haven't bothered to read... -\\'cԼF02:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blockedindefinitely Both Thooshe and the TA.Ordinarily I'd let this go as not only stale by today but also not a 3RR violation.But Thooshe's many edits continuing this through TAs, including above, suggest awareness that they were on thin iceand intent to evade the consequences.Daniel Case (talk)03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user keeps reverting many of my edits about Manchu family names with their temp accounts, using the excuse that "remove without reason", while I have already explained that Manchus do not call themselves with their surname.
Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[33]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[34]
Comments: Snokalok reverted a large number of edits I made to align with RS. I restored myself and placed comment on article talk page, pinging Snokalok to discuss more precise changes that Snokalok disputed. Snokalok instead reverted me again, accusing me of vague allegations of "carpet bombing", and has not replied on the article talk page.Zenomonoz (talk)22:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I realized I forgot the edit warring warning on Snokaloks talk page. I did place the discussion and ping on the article talk page before their revert, which they ignored. Snokalok is experienced enough to know that this is not the right way to handle it though.Zenomonoz (talk)22:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I did not see the 1RR. However past that, you rewrote the entire page and then reinstated it after being reverted. That is a disruptive violation of BRD and ONUS. Last I checked, ONUS is never in favor of the party making changes, and so you reinstating your changes after being reverted is far more disruptive than any act of reverting you. You also made no attempt to resolve this by other means before coming here, so your petition here is procedurally invalid.Snokalok (talk)22:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't rewritten the entire page, I've aligned things better with the RS and made things chronological. Most of my editing has been shifting things around. You've accused me of "hundreds upon hundreds" of edits in a "single night", when I did at most a few dozen so that users could check the diffs and see the reasoning. I think you've been extremely bad faith as shown by these false accusations and refusal to explain any individual problem on the talk page.Zenomonoz (talk)23:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely did not see you tagging me on the talk page because I have my username @ notifications turned off because in the past certain IP hoppers have bounced around and spam tagged me. Regardless, "a few dozen" (more than 50, btw) is still an insane amount and you cannot expect to be able to make such a massive change of the entire page and then have people revert it one edit at a time.Snokalok (talk)23:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These edits date from 27 November 2025 to four days ago. It's not edit warring: it looks like an attempt to 'win' a content discussion (being discussed as part ofan ongoing requested move). Given there's a consensus for the current page name (and therefore the associated IB) fromDecember 25, it's not really edit warring as Nikkimaria is returning the page back to the agreed consensus and has done that spaced over four months. It's more a question of the article needing protection.And Yejianfei, despite what you so uncivilly claimhere andhere,this edit isnot vandalism and your accusation of such is deeply uncivil. I suggest retracting it straight away. -SchroCat (talk)13:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
Stale. People are discussing on the article's talk page.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected I full-protected this page yesterday in response to a request at RFPP.Daniel Case (talk)22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely Both Thooshe and the TA.Ordinarily I'd let this go as not only stale by today but also not a 3RR violation.But Thooshe's many edits continuing this through TAs, including above, suggest awareness that they were on thin iceand intent to evade the consequences.Daniel Case (talk)03:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}