Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[8] (reverted),[9] (reverted),[10] (reverted),[11],[12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[13]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[14]
Comments: The user, who has already beenblocked recently for edit warring on an article about a similar topic (phonology), insists on acting as if they own the articles they edit. Added to this is the fact that they ignore reliable sources cited in the article and, by engaging in original research, modify a technical term from at least two of them, as if claiming to know more thanAryon Rodrigues, one of the greatest linguist of Brazilian Indigenous languages. Moreover, the useradmits to not speaking the language in which the very sources they use are written. Because of this, for example, the phonology of Kipeá wasfactually incorrect for years! Their attitude is intransigent; they have already been warned, and judging by the block log, this behavior is unfortunately not new and seems to be the account's modus operandi: trying to win by exhaustion, assuming they won't be reported here.Yacàwotçã (talk)07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Yacàwotçã The first two shouldn’t even count, because we just went over the updated source (from 2012) and since then, I have accepted it.
But yet you are still incredibly stubborn on the format of the charts. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Because of the format does not even need to match the exact same one in the publication source, and that is a fact. And yet you are that insistent on claiming that I am “edit-warring” over a format that is just plain sloppy and difficult for users to read. I rest my case.Fdom5997 (talk)14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Page protected (full) for 3 days. Honestly I can't tell if this dispute is still underway. Leave me a note on my talk page if you both have consensus to lift the protection earlier. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
As I've stated on your talk page, that's not a phoneme, but rather a phone. Adding it to the phoneme table is adding a factual error. The vowel table on both sources are clearhere andhere.Yacàwotçã (talk)05:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Either 1) you are incapable of realizing that it is a table of phonemes that establishminimal pairs (in which case it would be a matter ofWP:COMPETENCE), or 2) you have already realized that you made a mistake and are now trying to control the damage with one flimsy excuse after another (in which case it would be a matter ofWP:DROPTHESTICK). The thesis mentions dozens of realizations (phones) of the vowel phonemes, and you only added one of them (and in the phoneme table), turning the article into something bad.
Calling me “ignorant” and saying I am “turning the article into something horrendous” is just completely ad-hominem and hyperbolic. You need to learn to be open-minded and tone down your incredibly opinionated takes. You are not contributing anything useful to the conversation by slandering me like this.Fdom5997 (talk)12:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Page protected (full) for 1 week. My bad. I thought I had protected it earlier but apparently failed to hit the button after setting up the protection. Subsequent warring will result in blocks on all parties. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
By the way, can you please revert to the stable version in both cases? There's literally a factual error in one of them. Regards,Yacàwotçã (talk)16:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Insanityclown1: I fully protected the article which is what I did in April 2024 concerning the same issue (that is, I think the edit warring is again over the "is/was" wording question). A very quick did not show "an RfC back in June". Please link to it.Johnuniq (talk)05:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The policyWP:LEVELSOFCON is clear. RfCs are a higher level of consensus than local talk page discussions. RfCs have wide community notifications, and in this case significant participation, You don't overturn an RfC like that based on local talk discussions, much less when there are objections to it. --GreenC06:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The RfCTalk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)/Archive_2 says to use "is" in the lead sentence. The article currently says "was". There were some talk page discussions recently about it, multiple editors disagreed with overturning the RfC. And there was also no notification of previous RfC participants. The article is clearly pushing a POV contrary to established formal consensus, and attempts to add an NPOV tags have been forcefully disrupted. --GreenC05:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
So far. Ping participants from the RfC and it will go up. Nobody likes their !vote to be unilaterally "rejected" without knowledge of consent. --GreenC06:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[20]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[21]
Comments: Reverting is outside 24 hour period, but as perWP:3RR " Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, ".LibStar (talk)22:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I have made four reverts in four days (not "just outside 24 hours") and I don't have intentions of making any further. However, the issue I have is that I have not received any valid explanation as to why the content should not be there. Let'srun merely said "UNDUE" and never gave any further explanation, while LibStar's explanations are "I object", "redirect is a redirect not a merge", and "there is no consensus to include this", as well as messages on my talk page giving me a definition of what "merge" means and that a warning is "fully justified" in response to my asking for a reason.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I am closing this without action (and yes, when I glanced at the history quickly I thought it was 4 reverts in 24 hours and 2 minutes as well!).Black Kite (talk)23:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Saying "UNDUE" can be a valid reason, but I have not received any explanation as towhy it is undue. Meanwhile, things like "this is not a merge", "I object", and pasting the definition of a merge on my talkpage are not helpful to figuring out whether the text should be included.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
In my view, they really don't have to until a discussion seeking consensus is started, at which point they should explain in further detail their opposition. Edit summaries aren't the place to go into that type of detail. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)23:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
There was a discussion opened on my talk page, but the only explanations I received there were that"A merge or merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page" and that "[warning you] is fully justified" in response to my replies about the reasoning. Also, while its true I only just opened the Zaire discussion about 30 minutes ago, its kinda annoying that LibStar's edits since then are all proposing for deletion more Olympians, part of a long-standing pattern of immediately nominating for deletion Olympians after I try to discuss things with him or demonstrate that other PRODs are wrong (I can show evidence for this if you like).BeanieFan11 (talk)23:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It is notable that@LibStar: has been short and terse with their own words. I do get a feeling that they are expecting BeanieFan to be more experienced with Wikipedia, hence the use of templates and copy/paste answers. Answering a query ofSo? That's still not a reason for removing the text. with [[tq|The template is not "pointless" but fully justified.}} is particularly odd. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think LibStar expects me to be "more experienced" – we've both extensively edited/interacted in the Olympic area for years and this is far from the first time I've received unhelpful responses like that from them.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
20:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1318913694 byInexpiable (talk) Still not on the current list. Source linked only cites "Persons Appearing on the List More Than Once" with Cindy Rodriguez Singh Dates: 07/01/25 - 08/21/25. 8/21/25 (indicating that's when she stopped appearing on the list) was 2 months ago."
Comments: IP editor edit-warring against four other users removing the phrase "sexually suggestive" and replacing it with POV descriptors.OhNoitsJamieTalk16:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Adding unsourced data. On being reverted by other editors, the user undoes other editors' reverts and restore their own revision containing unsourced data. The user is using an IP, and since reverted many edits within few hours and got the tag "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits", I subjected user with a L4 Edit-Warring warning and restored stable revision, but user ignored the warning and again reverted the stable restore.MaahirSehgal (talk)14:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I tried to resolved previous disputes, as did other editors. This is now another article that's part of this topic where these editors are going at it.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[45],[46]
Comments: These editors have had an ongoing conflict on articles related topost-punk,gothic rock, andglam rock. I warned them about edit warring, and Aradicus77 even brought the issue to ANI. When they then brought the issue to this page,ToBeFree blocked both editors from editing the post-punk and Gothic rock articles. They also warned both that if they see more edit warring between the two, they will propose an interaction ban[47],[48].
How am I edit warring? I opened up a talk page discussion about what I was gonna add. Issan agreed. I made changes. Woovee reverted everything I added with no explanation then I added it back. Why do you keep making it look like I am the aggressor?Aradicus77 (talk)14:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
This edit summary by Woovee is unacceptable[49] does he not know not everyone in the world speaks English as a first language? Does he not know people are fluent in 4 diff languages and might have errors at times?Aradicus77 (talk)14:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
[50] and when I told you about this on your talk page you didnt even reply. Ive also mentioned before woovee only edits goth related pages for the last few months I contribute to all kinds of pages from what users like Binksternet has said it feels like while I was contributing to a wide range of music pages I stumbled onto pages that Woovee was trying to uphold ownership of (not crazy to say this as other users have pointed out his OWN mentality) and now while I try to just edit pages as usual. Woovee turns everything into an edit war which Binksternet said is what Woovee does. So what are my options now just never edit those pages? How does that not mean that Woovee is using OWN tacticsAradicus77 (talk)14:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment To be honest, both of you have been pbanned from two pages already, this one would be a third, and I strongly suspect that anything further would simply result in a topic ban from music-related items. So there's a choice here - either you can discuss this and come to a mutual agreement (or use a dispute resolution noticeboard) or that will be the inevitable conclusion. It's your choice.Black Kite (talk)18:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked both sitewide indefinitely so we can talk about binding unblock conditions like topic bans or interaction bans, and even if they're just for a limited duration to encourage editing elsewhere and with less problems.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
While they did violate 3RR, their deletions were in line with policy, and the content should not have been re-added.@Lp0 on fire,LuniZunie, andPlasticwonder: please be more careful when re-adding deleted content; even if a user doesn't provide an edit summary, the burden is still on you to show that the contentshould be in the article. As they are (I assume) a new editor who doesn't know about our edit warring policies, closing with no action. —Ingenuity (talk)20:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[70]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[71]
Comments: The user is repeatedly addingWP:UNDUE and potentiallyWP:BLP violating content. By the time I had noticed of their edit warring atDrew Pavlou, they had already broken 3RR. The user's edit warring continued while a discussion regarding their disputed changes was taking place atTalk:Drew Pavlou#WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. After I went to their talk page, I saw that they had not been warned and as such, assumed that they did not know about the edit warring policy or about 3RR so I placed a basic edit warring template. However, upon further inspection, I realized that the user had already been warned of edit warring in the past and informed of what 3RR is,[72] though the user had then removed that older warning.[73]. After me warning the user regarding their edit warring, they went on to continue their edit warring. Worst of all, they then simply copied my edit warring warning and pasted it on my user page[74]. Looking at the user's broader edit history, it is riddled with constant reverts of the BLP articleDrew Pavlou. —EarthDude (Talk)19:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
To take a moment to characterize what's been going on, a while back Earthdude conducted a rapid-fire series of edits on the Drew Pavlou page, omitting sections on frivolous grounds added by multiple other users. Each of my reversions addressed, line-item, reasons why the removed section was in fact due. Earthdude's conduct in eschewing a consensus-seeking approach, declining to engage in a discussion about the subject matter, and acting in an autonomous manner through repeated reversions suggests their conduct more strongly aligns with the behavior that rules against edit warring seek to discourage. I additionally fail to see how either using the edit warring warning placed on my page as a template nor the discussions I've had regarding Pavlou's page in the past have any bearing why it's inappropriate for me not to acquiesce to edit warring by EarthDude.Catjerine (talk)04:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
None of this excuses your edit warring, that too at a BLP article. When I had edited the Drew Pavlou article a while back, I didn't just remove overdetailed and heavily undue information, I also added quite a lot of information from reliable sources that was missing from the article. Baselessly accusing me of edit warring is absurd, when you are the one who has not only broken 3RR but gone far beyond that. —EarthDude (Talk)06:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
For a large portion of your omissions you neglected to even state a reason why you thought the information was undue. Moreover, your minimal engagement on the talk page (where you give only cursory mention to your basis for deleting long-standing, notorious and properly sourced information) is more indicative of an attempt to check off compliance standards for elevation rather than good-faith engagement in the substantive issues. Trying to correct for edit warring on your part is not an act of edit warring on mine.Catjerine (talk)07:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
While the information they have removed may be fine, they keep removing unrelated citations for unexplained reasons. On top of this, they refuse to provide further explanation on their deletion of the proper citations.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)20:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
08:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1319855002 byOrientls (talk) what? it is exactly what the source says, as I discussed on talk page. Also, Kulkarni specifically mentions sati (not only jauhar) as "particularly popular" with regard to Rajputs"
04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "no good justification for this wholesale deletion of correctly cited historical context (building on the last good revision by Fowler&Fowler), relevant quotes, and correction to page number. next I will address the Rajputs/Mughals issue"
15:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "rv edits byUser:Longewal - please obtain consensus before making such changes. The source you have deleted actually supports the coercion aspect by saying "or being burned""
Despite repeated attempts to dissuade this editor from edit warring and instead taking part in discussion at the talkpage by proposing his edits, he continues restoring the disputed content and falsification of source.Zalaraz (talk)08:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I apologise if I have indeed run afoul of 3RR during my batch of edits (and in any case I will refrain from further edits for the time being), but please note that the earliest revert listed here (5.) had nothing to do with the other disputed content, and was simply restoration of part of a disambiguation hatnote and two sourced quotes that were newly deleted without prior discussion, with only an edit summary which I noticed was partly incorrect. (There has since been some more constructivetalk page discussion by this editor.) As for the main disputed line in the other edits, the line was not my new addition but was part of the reliably sourced, prior stable version of the lead, carefully worded by South Asia editors who are experienced in good historical writing (see[76],[77], etc.), and I did not think that it could be deleted without consensus. Istarted a section on the talk page to discuss further and address any valid concerns (about this, or my further additions). There is certainly no "falsification of source" involved (I verified the cited source), and I do not feel that such an allegation is appropriate to make. -Avantiputra7 (talk)10:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Avantiputra7 You should self-revert your last edits right now if you really regret violating 3RR. Yes you have misrepresentd the source as already concluded by 3 editors on talk page.Zalaraz (talk)11:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Avantiputra7, this is not about the number of reverts. Please have a look atWP:ONUS:The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That's you. If, after the block, you restore text others have removed, withoutyou having found a consensus to re-add the content, you may be blocked again. Even if it happens just once. Someone removes material you'd like to have in the article? Discuss. Find a consensus first. Ideally let someone else restore the content, don't do it yourself. If the re-addition of previously-disputed content is as uncontroversial as you think, you can surely find at least one user who does so for you.~ ToBeFree (talk)16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
08:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "The reason for the change was already explained in a previous edition. What matter is what appears in the UFC fighter card during the live event. The flags that appear here are not about nationality, but about which country that athlete is representing. We should respect each athlete decision to represent whatever country they want. Fighters like Topuria and Mackenzie have multiple nationalities, they are free to choose which country they want to represent in their card"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:Nationality warring across half a dozen pages. Brazilian editor has decided a fighter is Brazilian, will not relent in changing flags back, despite multiple editors changing their edits back.Nswix (talk)15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The flag shows the country, which athlete is representing. Topuria represents Georgia and Mackenzie represents Brazil. Tjis flag appears in their cards and this flags must be in that tables here.Lado85 (talk)15:15, 30 October 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.
16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC) ""Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say." The edit cites an article, which does not cite an published source for the allegations made."
16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say.
There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood's budget in the year 2017.The editor cited the Financial Times article. The finacial times article cited a nonexisting link as evidence of Lakewood's budget..."
15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */The edit I removed is prohibited on Wikipedia as it falls under the category of original research. There is no published existing source cited to support the claims made.
Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say."
15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */Attempting to get a Wikipedia editor to remove slander. Clearly the last editor lacks discernment."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Editor appears to feel that since they can't find the Houston Chronicle article, then the Financial Times must be making things up. C.Fred has tried to discuss this to no avail.Acroterion(talk)18:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Editor also has attempted to prefer primary sources to secondary. At best, editor does not understand Wikipedia policy. At worst, this is a COI attempt to sterilize the article of negative content. I was considering escalating this to ANI; however, this can probably be handled by an uninvolved admin here. —C.Fred (talk)19:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
While I do not have full knowledge of Wikipedia policy, I do know that C.Fred and Acroterion have violated it multiple times through our interactions. Revising edits with "Original Research" is in violation of Wikipedia Policy. Engaging in an edit war without following the guideline: "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." And Acroterion has made multiple condesceding assertions on my state of mind.
Again, the Financial Times has provided no FOIA request of Lakewood's Budget for the year of 2017, so what evidence has been provided to support their slanderous assertion that less than 1% of the budget was given towards charity.
That is in direct violation of the Original Research Policy which states, ideas, allegations, and fact, must be support through citation of evidence of such facts. Not simply a link to another webpage article that repeats the allegation.47.205.180.147 (talk)23:20, 2 November 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.
This is unfair because it is viewpoint discrimination. The editors reporting me have provided sources and information for another candidate and are ignoring similarly-cited resources for another candidate. They are interfering with an election by excluding content on the basis of viewpoint, the night before an election.Millennial2025 (talk)01:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
All citations have been included in their original format. These people are unfairly targeting Alex Uballez but not the other candidate with endorsements containing similar "self-sourcing" and "non-notable" individuals. Some of that information was even posted by an individual who entered another candidate's endorsements. Even where there are reliable sources, they are removing the information. They have even removed the full name as it appears on the ballot without reason. This is viewpoint discrimination and an attempt to meddle in a local election by allowing one candidate's endorsements to be listed but not another.Millennial2025 (talk)00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Could you clarify any other endorsements that are self-sourced or by non-notable individuals? Seriously, just provideone.
Actually since you care so much about information being sourced correctly, and go out of your way to do it for candidates for an election you have no stake in--please, by all means, correct these. Thanks in advance!
16 New Mexican artists, including Marian Berg, Nani Chacón, Tina De la Luz , Sofia Eleftheriou, Eric García, Jodi Herrera, Denis Kennedy, Teri Marsala Esrig, Warren Montoya, Jack Ox, Eric Romero, Hank Schuyler, Vicente Telles, Barbara Wisoff, Sueko Yamada[12]
This isnot a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
This isnot a notable organization, and 'Ole' just links to the Spanish phrase, rather than the group
This isnot a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
This isnot a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
'Gun Sense Voter' is not an organization -- it's a branch ofEverytown for Gun Safety that 'approves' or 'disapproves' of candidates based off their support for tougher gun legislation. Keller is the only candidate properly endorsed by Everytown, but all other Democratic-affiliated candidates in the race have Gun Sense Voter-approved ratings.
This isnot a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
This isnot a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
This isalready on the page
This isimproperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see:Wikipedia:ENDORSE)
This isimproperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see:Wikipedia:ENDORSE)
This isimproperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see:Wikipedia:ENDORSE) None of us haveany affiliation with any candidates in this election, and your suggestions that we are editing with political bias appears to be projection. Although it isn't relevant, (based off research when I was expanding this article weeks ago), I actually like Uballez and prefer him to Keller. If you are able to provide independent sources for Maestas and Barreras, they can certainly be included in the article.
Those instagram posts are jointly posted. Organizations posted by Keller also are not "notable" or linked to an existing Wikipedia page. This is viewpoint discrimination and unequal treatment.Millennial2025 (talk)01:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I am unsure if you have actually readWikipedia:ENDORSE in any way. It doesn't matter that they were jointly posted becauseendorsements made by individuals cannot be sourced to social media.
Also -- you're just wrong. Most of the organizations you listed are directly sourced to the local organizations website...Aesurias (talk)01:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not engaging with you anymore, and will let an administrator deal with this.
The problem here is you have not gone out of your way to find "adequate" sources the way you have for another candidate in a local election, the night before the election. Please, apply your citation support equally and evenly.Millennial2025 (talk)01:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you able to find sources for Maestas and Barreras that don't come from the individuals themselves or Uballez? If so, send them to me and they will be added. I had previously tried and was unable to.
Constant accusations toward other editors is not helping your case, if anything it is hurting it. Seeing as you've not responded to what I said above, I am hoping you now understand that the endorsements you added were not suitable in their current form. If you feel that any of the organizationsare notable, then you should make articles for them to prove this.Aesurias (talk)01:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Where did you previously try? It is literally a video of Barreras saying she endorses Alex Uballez. Not everyone uses social media, and in our state not everyone has internet access or webpages. They post via social media campaigns. These endorsements are permitted by state law and local regulations in our jurisdiction.Millennial2025 (talk)01:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
State law is not Wikipedia guidelines, and it's irrelevant that the video is of Barreras herself, because it is sourced to social media. I personally disagree with the Wikipedia guidelines and believe those kinds of endorsements are suitable, but most editors are opposed to this.
Yes and 5 by editors. What is your point? That information should be posted the night before an election. This is unfair because it is viewpoint discrimination. The editors reporting me have provided sources and information for another candidate and are ignoring similarly-cited resources for another candidate. They are interfering with an election by excluding content on the basis of viewpoint, the night before an election.Millennial2025 (talk)01:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
No... not by 5 editors -- just by you. Do you understand what the user actually meant? There is no discrimination, please stop with the silly allegations.Aesurias (talk)01:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
This is not mischief-making. Please read the explanation of the "undoing" of my edits. It says "endorsements, why?" That is not a valid reason. The same editor sought out and posted endorsements and citations (that are similar, such as Facebook) for one candidate but not another. That is unequal treatment that should not be permitted.Millennial2025 (talk)01:44, 4 November 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.
If I can defend myself. In August I was made aware that both the Gambino Family and theirGhetto Organized album were redirected, this is despite the fact that the album went to #17 on the U.S. Billboard 200, thus passing Wikipedia:Notability (music) which states an artist is notable if that artist "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Knowing that the group had charted highly in the US, I reverted the articles back their original state. User:Nayyn, left a note on my talk page asking me to add references, which I did to both chart positions. Now the above user, who is self-admittedly is "not well-versed enough in hip-hop", unbeknownst to me had pinged 2 other users to the group's talk page, both of whom had zero awareness about either the group or album and formed an extremely questionable "consensus" as both users that were pinged basically just agreed with the above user with no research with one user stating to "it's your decision" Now both are articles are stubs and probably wont ever exceed beyond that, but if a group that has a top 20 album in the United States isn't notable as the above user claims, what artist is? Perhaps a more official consensus can be reached elsewhere.Beast from da East (talk)03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
1. There wasconsensus to redirect, meaning other editors agreed with my assessement.
2. Youstill have not provided anyreliable sources, and refuse to say anything at all when I ask you to provide more.
I have explained this to you multiple times, yet you still insist on stonewalling me and saying "I don't get what this user's issue is".Binksternet (talk·contribs) has stepped in and restored the redirect.
If you think it should be undone, thenprove it and don't edit-war.
And who are you exactly? You're not at administrator, you've been blocked a half dozen times and that "consensus" is extremely questionable as it's on a little seen page and you basically pinged users who blindly agreed. Why not take it to AFD? The articles in question are sourced, both the group and albums meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability due to the chart success. It's a stub, sure but stubs are not illegal on this site. Just to play devil's advocate, an article you created well over a decade agoRockin' in the Country, did not chart, has no charting singles, has one Allmusic review as a source is basically a track list that will never exceed stub status, if you can kindly explain how that article is notable and howGhetto Organized, which is a top 20 album in the U.S, isn't, I'd feel a lot better on this.Beast from da East (talk)18:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Can the articles in question be taken to AFD? Or is there another way to have other users to participate in a discussion? At least that way, we can have an actual consensus?Beast from da East (talk)19:36, 3 November 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.
02:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing this page. That New Yorker article state's Keith's age. It states where he is from. It states his former work. You are an idiot and need to be banned from wikipedia. Undid revision1320217590 byKuru (talk)"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[92]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[93]
Comments: On2 November 2025 at 13:57User:Ixudi reverted my edit after which Iopened talk page discussion. The page history showed a long series of back and forth edit warring and POV pushing, and Irestored the origins section as it was on 10 May 2025, asking User:Ixudi to discuss the additions hereafter at talk page. However, theycontinued edit warring and adding the disputed content back. At10:39 3 November 2025 I made the last reply to them at talk page to which they did not respond and went to WP:3O, without notifying me about it. Today instead of replying at talk page or waiting for response to their own request for 3O they have made a fourth revert and added the disputed content back with edit summaryrestoring longstanding sentence. No consensus achievers to remove it. To me it appears User:Ixudi either does not understand WP:CONSENSUS or they do, but keep ignoring it anyways inspite of my best efforts to inform them of it[94][95] and keep resorting to edit warring instead to maintain the version they like.Sutyarashi (talk)13:23, 4 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. However, to be honest, looking briefly at the talk page discussion, this is not something that should be simply solved by one administrator, but possibly needs a wider look atArbitration enforcement as it falls under the South Asia contentious topic. I'd recommend going there.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I’m one of the other parties involved in the dispute. This is more or less a content dispute between 2 parties and I’ve advised Sutyarashi that as we are unable to reach consensus on the talk page, we need to look at other avenues. I’ve approachedWP:3O regarding this and still waiting for an update on this. Is there anything else you suggest?Ixudi (talk)14:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
As I'm not interested in participating in edit wars, and I'm not completely sure that this does counts as actual/obvious vandalism, I'm not going to revert further edits by this user.--Gurkubondinn(talk)16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The best thing to do is to raise a report atWP:AIV instead. If it is vandalism (and not just somebody very confused), the block will hopefully have deterred them. If it somehow doesn't, then the next one will be site wide.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User created his profile only for change Ilia Topuria's flag. His has not other edits.
He began this war year ago, changing this flag without reason.
There was not problem with flag till this user began his war.
The flags listed in these tables are in accordance with the UFC's official telecasts and may not fully or accurately represent the full citizenship of the people listed. Flags are in accordance with the UFC's official telecasts, and show what country does fighter represent, not citenzship (Ilia Topuria is citizen of both - Georgia and Spain).
Warned The issue is relatively stale for the minute, but be advised I will block either of you if I see any more reverts. You areboth edit warring. Stop reverting each other and discuss the issues.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) "The series was still popular in Belgium. At this point you're not even removing the information I have added because it's false, you're just removing it out of spite."
20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC) "The series was also hugely successful in Belgium, according to Buichi Terasawa's official website, where Terasawa (the series' creator) was made an honorary citizen of the City of Durbuy, Belgium."
I did provide actual sources. That includes Buichi Terasawa's official website that lists him being awarded honorary citizenship of the city of Durbuy, Belgium. None of you have actually bothered to elaborate how it's fake or false. It's his own official website created by Terasawa himself.
The only ones being rude here are you guys. You write off my sources as false or unreliable without actually bothering to research if what I am saying or if the sources I provide are true or false.FPSfan3000 (talk)15:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I was on the verge of taking this to ANI myself due to, upon receiving feedback about the unsourced edit, FPSfan3000 responded withNow fuck off, you power-tripping dickhead[100]. Unfortunately, this editor is either unwilling or unable to follow or policies and guidelines around sourcing/verifiability. This started off with their very first edit after two-month block for the exact same conduct. Sadly, the two-month block was not effective in preventing future problems.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Someone (possibly OP?) keeps editing the wikipedia article to add this trafficking "fact" into the article and then wikipedia editors remove it because the claim has no verifiable source. This has been going on for quite some time.[101]Polygnotus (talk)12:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[108]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[109]
Comments:
Multiple TA accounts, clearly the same user, have repeatedly added trivia about thisWP:BLP subject supposedly being a fan of TLC to the article and have been reverted by myself and another editor as disputed. This has been done over several days with no response to the sourcing concerns,WP:ONUS/consensus requirements, and trivial nature of the content that I've raised on the talk page. --Ponyobons mots17:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The most recent one, at least. I'm still getting used to how we should be blocking temporary accounts. If there's more block evasion the underlying IPs will also need to be blocked. —Ingenuity (talk)18:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Response: I've already explain it many times. The past edition in Grammys also add the links. Many award pages also add the link in the box. No one reject or revert. I don't understand what the problem is? It's unfair. Also it's mine and another user's problem. I don't know why user:Bgsu98 intervention for this.Stevencocoboy (talk)04:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Declined Looking at their recent contributions,ItsMario97 appears to be on a strictunpiping mission. This appears to be based on the content of a how-to page without noticing that in some cases such asSpecial:Diff/1321012180, piped links may avoid ambiguity and are at very least not worth edit warring about. The content under dispute and the extent of the edit warring are too trivial to justify a block.~ ToBeFree (talk)06:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
10:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1320869000 byNBS13QRS (talk) which they effectively did by announcing on October 29 that they received a single operating certificate. It's a brand not an airline anymore"
Comments:User has been given ample notice about their behavior on their personal talk page and on the Hawaiian Airlines talk page. User is reverting others to enforce personally held points of view, not engaging in meaningful editorial dialogue, and acting like they have ownership of the page.RickyCourtney (talk)04:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
~2025-31223-81, I'd normally remove this report for not using the template and becauseLorry Gundersen hasn't received the required notification on their talk page either. However, it seems reasonable to ask them for an explanation, so I'll notify them asking for one.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello! The record from Guinness World Records for Fábio is irrelevant because it includes friendlies, I think the info for Peter Shilton, as it is right now, is more appropriate. And regarding Roque Santa Cruz, as I have told you before, we don't count only top-level matches. The number of matches played after he made 1,000 appearances is fine counting for the total matches. Kind regards,Lorry Gundersen (talk)13:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I am not the one edit warring. I gave reasoning in the edits why I reverted, but the user ~2025-31223-81 kept reverting and accusing me of edit warring. Kind regards,Lorry Gundersen (talk)13:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[112]
Comments: In multiple articles, this user engages inWP:EW about pictures and images, never engaging in any dialogue, whether that be in his talk page or in the articles talk page.In his talk page, there are multiple warnings over several months about the same attitude. Not once he responded to justify himself. When reverted, by multiple users (as the diffs show), he again doesn't even use the edit summary to justify anything. The behavior just persists, regardless of what is said in his talk page.Coltsfan (talk)14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
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.Aoidh (talk)09:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Comments: User:IvanScrooge98 has been edit warring in 2 different pages which are linked above, Margherita Hack and Mahmoon (singer). The edits are about the IPA of their Italian names. He modified the IPA to unsourced (as non-existent) pronunciations. In Italian, like in other Romance languages, the letter <h> is always silent and never pronounced. It may be forcedly pronounced in foreign words or names to strongly point out their foreignness. This isn't the case at all because both persons are Italians born in Italy. Margherita "Hack" has got a surname of Swiss origin, Mahmood is a stage name consisting in a pun between his name of Egyptian origin Mahmoud and the English phrase "my mood". They themselves have never pronounced their name with a /h/ sound, and no Italian talking to or about them has ever done that. You may want to check these pieces of information about Italian language in Wikipedia articles and the related sources, and about these people's name anywhere in the Internet, to confirm their correctness, please check if you like. That said, during the last months I've been trying correcting the IPA of the 2 names after User:IvanScrooge98's wrong edits, explaining in the edit summary why they were wrong and underlining that no source had been provided to prove that they were correct. In case anyone could provide a reliable source for the /h/ sound inside their names, I wouldn't any objection to its addition. But I know that no source exists because, being Italian, I well know that no one speaking Italian would even pronounce their names like that. Also consider that there're other famous Italians whose names contain the letter <h> (also excluding the digraphs "ch" and "gh") and none of them is pronounced differently from Hack or Mahmood, and that also the sounds /x/ and /θ/ may be forcedly pronounced by an Italian speaker but, unlike for example the sound /ʒ/, you won't find them in any IPA in Wikipedia: User:IvanScrooge98 is obsessed just with this 2 names for some reasons. He'll continue restoring "his" favourite IPA even if he knows that won't be able to find any source on his behalf. I'd like this to stop once for all. Let me add some other information about this user. You'll be able to verify that he's been banned indefinitely in Italian Wikipedia after a series of blocks. The context, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with IPA, but the reason is always his behaviour. Like here, where he continues making a wrong edit justifying it with "it's like this because I say so, period", also there he continued saying "I'm the one right while you, admins, are wrong and abusing your powers to act against me". Even when he was given the chance to apologise by the ArbCom. The reason for his block is "not here to build an encyclopedia". If you know Italian language or if you want to use Google Translate, you can read his Italian talk page before the block and the ArbCom deliberation in Italian Wikipedia to verify what I've said. In conclusion, I'm asking that the 2 described edits by User:IvanScrooge98 be undone because they're wrong and unsourced, and I'm asking a user like that to be stopped edit warring in such pages.~2025-32055-48 (talk)07:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
12:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Economic system in India after Independence */ I am adding source since my edit was removed communism is still every popular in India and they completely stop foreign investment"
I withdraw the nomination, as this dispute appears to have subsided, and other Wikipedians have stepped in to defend the article in question from disruptive editing.PatGallacher (talk)18:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[135] and[136]Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[137]
Comments: These were lost using the wizard, so added here by hand. The editor made a statement atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Polin "This was requested" which reads as they received a request to revert a draftification and/or write the article. I therefore asked, politely, on their talk page how they received the request as it suggests COI. This question was ignored and deleted. I therefore did standardWP:NPP and tagged the page for possible COI. This maintenance tag was reverted 3 times, and the question has still not been answered either on their talk page or the article talk page. I also did a little checking, and found that they had made a major deletion atFellows of the Royal Society without discussion. I reverted that asking for them to reach concensus via the talk page. Again ignored, change reverted. WhileWP:DONTBITE is relevant, I have tried to be gentle and issue multiple warnings, getting nowhere. The tone of some of their comments is not veryWP:5P.Ldm1954 (talk)05:44, 10 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. The two most recent reverts, to me, should count as one since they were both to the COI tag.
And beyond that, I wouldreally recommend against placing COI tags on an article while it's up for deletion (especially when it looks like delete will carry the day). If the article isn't going to be around for very long, there's no point in putting it there. Doing so, especially repeatedly during an AfD, can look like you're trying to pile on. And the creator's COI is really not by itself a reason to delete.Daniel Case (talk)19:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:diff
Comments: A user with few edits is attempting to impose information that contradicts other available sources (in this case, regarding the player's height), ignoring all warnings given. He had already done this last week and did it again today.Svartner (talk)06:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of72 hours from the page since it was a slow-motion edit war. Users still have access to the talk page (hint hint).Daniel Case (talk)19:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Evidently,WP:NOTHERE applies in their case. Besides the edit warring, they have also made that clear with personal attacks (diff1,diff2), for which they were also warned. In both pages, the changes are similar; essentially improperly changing the lead to state that the associatedGreek minority and their language isn't really Greek, but Albanian. In some of these edits they also cited sources which lack page numbers, and appear to have been arbitrarily chosen to make their edits appear more legitimate. Besides the reported pages, they similarly disruptedHimarë (town) (diff) andPalasë (diff), which like Dhërmi, are also about settlements populated by members of the Greek minority in the Himarë region of Albania.
On 20 Sep 2025 the editor reverted and redirectedAdvancing American Freedom with the edit summary “Sock,” which is an accusation of misconduct made in an edit summary rather than at SPI:
PerWP:ASPERSIONS, accusations should be raised with evidence at the proper venue and not used in edit summaries. Seeking admin input on whether a warning/sanction is appropriate and whether the redirect should be reviewed.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-32462-30 (talk)
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)20:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring on Blake Butera by CountryANDWestern (Result: Stale)
Short statement: Despite valid sourcing concerns, the user repeatedly reverted the same claim during a live news cycle rather than using the talk page/consensus. This appears to meetWP:EDITWAR; requesting admin review atWP:AN3.
Note that this happened on October 30. The edits in question were at the biography of a sports manager who "sources" were saying was finalizing a deal to become a team's manager. My reverts were removing edits that stated he was now the manager when it was not yet confirmed. Probably debatable if this is actually a BLP 3RR exemption since the exemption does saynegative but I was acting in good faith to uphold the standards related to hirings/signings that we don't act upon "finalizing a deal" reports and we wait for official announcement of hirings/signings. (The subject in this case wasn't announced officially under the next day).CountryANDWestern (talk)15:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Page protected for a week. When making reports here in the future, please use the correct format as it makes it easier for us to review (see worse examples elsewhere on this page). Also, consider actuallywarning editors who do this sort of thing—as I often say when declining reports at RFPP, I can't blame vandals or editors like this for continuing to do what they've been doing when they haven't the faintest clue that it's not wanted.Daniel Case (talk)20:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
06:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "The Battle Of Sylhet was solely fought by Indian Soldiers. Some miscreants are making mischief on Result. I humbly request Wikipedia administrators to take care of."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Constantly changing results without any discussions or consultation, this user has been ongoing edit warring with Bangladesh Liberation War topics and giving citations from Indian news articles that has no proper basis. This user also vandalizing other articles as[142],[143],[144],[145] even whenSynorem warned not to.Aaaas216& (talk)18:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours since the articles are within a contentious topic area and the editor has been alerted to this. I will also be putting the two articles under indef ECP since merely asking people nicely to respect ECR is not working.Daniel Case (talk)20:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I only had one temporary accounts on mistake because wiki logs off. And tgeorgescu should be band he is says I am unkind or ask for kind and he isn't kind. I am just stating the SDA Church is very unsure of the day observe when the article states 7th day on Gregorian Calendar.Gregorydpark2020 (talk)02:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
By having my facts of this church does it help the SDA Church and the SDA Church is so screwed up that it will fall with this wiki error. And the local church has been notified a lot. Have I done my do diligence to tgeorge..?Gregorydpark2020 (talk)02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeated addition of unsourced and promotional material to this BLP, and removal of referenced content. User has added this information five times, including after final warning.Tacyarg (talk)08:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Does the guideline you linked not explicitly use "Musk with then–president-elect Trump", inadvertently confirming that "X-elect/designate" is correct rather than "X–elect/designate"?Aesurias (talk)04:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Nope. That example refers to a prefix/suffix attached to hyphened compound (then- +president-elect, notthen-president +-elect). Non-hyphened constructions are prefixed/suffixed with an endash per the guideline. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)10:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
IvanScrooge98, you may well be right and someone may restore your edits, but you shouldn't now, please. Reporting instead of reverting again was the right decision. Let them have the latest revision at least for a few days instead of edit warring yourself. And if this continues, don't wait for three or more reverts to be made including yours; just let me know ifDash9Z continues.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
14:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Professional wrestling career */This is not editing warring you loser!!!! Stop editing good work. You must have 0 life you loser"
Comments:Across multiple temp accounts, clearly the same individual however.Has also engaged in personal attacks, as can be seen in their other edits. —Czello(music)14:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked the userCzelloisaloser and also semi-protected theParker Boudreaux page - it seems clear that this individual is engaging in personal attacks and causing disruption on that page. However, I should point out that it looks like they are not the only one demonstrating sub-optimal conduct on that page. On your part,Czello, you'veused the rollback tool to revert edits which are not at all clear vandalism (they appear to be sourced content) and meanwhile,HHH Pedrigree has broken theWP:3RR by reverting four times between 07:30, 11 November 2025 and 21:57, 11 November 2025, again reverting edits that aren't obvious and clear vandalism. Please try to avoid such actions going forward. — Amakuru (talk)15:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not that they were vandalism – I don't believe that anyone said they were – it's that the edits covered non-notable events (as was explained in edit summaries). As professional wrestling bios quickly become overburdened with non-notable content, particularly given that there are usually weekly updates, we only retain significant matches and events to avoid fan-wikiWP:CRUFT that wouldn't be acceptable for other fictional characters. —Czello(music)15:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Technically, the rollback tool wasn't used for the linked diff. Practically,Czello did arguably imply with their default Twinkle "rollback" edit summary that one of the cases listed atWP:ROLLBACKUSE, usually "obvious vandalism", applied. "Stop edit warring" is not a valid revert reason either.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
OK, because I want it to be easier for others to follow what has happened, I repeat my postion that the versionUser:Snokalok andUser:Grayfellare trying to revert to, without trying to talk it out on the Talk page, is thisone
It is an older version (that do not include refs, agreed by everyone to be legitimate, that refer to theEvie (magazine) as conservative).
The position we started before yesterday debate was this one:
(There are slight differences, but all keep the language "conservative [sources] alt-right magazine....")
I don't remove the "alt-right" materials. I add the "conservative" materials. And nobody in the Talk page protests the additions of "conservative" materials. They just have different ideas on how to put "conservative" and "altright" in the description of the magazine (first sentence). In the last message ofUser:Zenomonoz, they said that they agreed with my position.Deamonpen (talk)02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll just paste my original intro,Deamonpen (talk·contribs) has been relentlessly refusing to drop the stick and edit warring against consensus onEvie Magazine even when everyone in the talk page thread[150] is against him. He consistently edit wars to water down the language describing the mag in the lead from "Alt-right" to "conservative" to "An American women's magazine described as conservative" despite everyone in the thread consistently being against him and a continuation of the stronger language of the status quo (or else the strength-equivalent "Far right"). Deamonpen's justification for this in the face of everyone in the thread being against his position, is on the grounds that consensusis not determined by the number of peope who say X. It is about what arguments they bring and how the debates end.[151] All I've done is revert his disruptive edits.Snokalok (talk)02:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Both Deamonpen and Snokalok have gone right up to 3rr for something they have both previously been reverted on.
This version, from a couple days ago, is described as the status quo version. The lead of the current version ispretty close to that one. The changes to the body seem mostly unrelated to this current dispute. Theversion Deamonpen restored has an egregious formatting error that shows that it is not stable and was apparently restored reflexively without evaluation. I'll also note thatthis edit summary claiming that nobody else disputes this change is flatly wrong, as is the claim that everyone agreed about the sources.Grayfell (talk)02:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Described as status quo by whom? Not, since we started the debate yesterday.
I don't see [people on the Talk page] saying that "we should remove the "conservative" description (with suitable refs)", as shown above. It is you and Snokalok trying to remove the "conservative" materials without talking it out.Deamonpen (talk)02:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Yesterday, you yourself didn't protest the "conservative" materials - or I cannot see it in the last exchange between you and me. You just protested me inserting the long quote in the first sentence of the lede:
"Cramming a quote without any context into a note in the very first sentence both makes the article look sloppy and bad and also seems like it's edging into disruptive behavior. The cited source is not challenging or disputing the 'far-right' label in any way, and they included the 'far-right' quote for a reason. Just because a source supports 'conservatism' doesn't mean it cannot also support 'far-right', 'right wing', 'alt-right' etc. The lead should be succinct. As a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so how they choose to describe their own magazine inherently has less weight than reliable sources." (Grayfell)
And I repeat, the "conservative" sources just flat out say that Evie is conservative in their own voices. They do not quote the Evie founder or other Evie people or anything.
These are the sources referring to Evie as conservative (so it is easier for others to follow):
If you care about the invisible note (that you at first tried to remove yesterday) so much, why did you not restore Bluethricecreamman's version? Not that the version you reverted to is anything perfect in syntax and everything either. Not with the unreliable tag PARAKANYAA added to the Rollingstone, which is used extensively by you guys to build the article.
Comment, I don't think I said I "agreed" with Deamonpen's position? I said I would favour 'far right' over 'alt right' because the term alt right is usually associated with atheistic far-right rather than conservative trad wife stuff that Evie does.Zenomonoz (talk)08:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, probably misinterpretation on my part. Just our last exchange went like this:
>>"Personally, I think that like many other things on the right nowadays, it is a mixture of different people and one often tends to put less constraint on what the other says, so the first NYT article is also right, that the general trend is conservative, but some authors/articles can be very fringe (and they will not apologize or be dismissed, unlike what often happens in mainstream journalism, especially left-leaning parts).
But the point is that I like the exact term to be sourced (if source says far-right, then it is far-right) and reliable sources to be treated as equal. You would not like "conservative women's magazine which are described by Source X and Y as far-right/alt-right" either, right?" (Deamonpen)
When you said that, I did understand that your approval also means you approved my thinking, that "far-right/alt-right women's magazine which is described as conservative" (in the lede) is unacceptable, because "conservative women's magazine which is described as far-right/alt-right" is unacceptable. I myself don't care about the far-right/alt-right part. I just want it to be reflect the sources. If some sources say conservative and some sources say far-right/alt-right, then we need a way to inform the readers of that fact, and not create a SYNTH.Deamonpen (talk)08:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
regardless of Deamonpen's conduct (i haven't kept up since originally looking at this), this report is poorly formatted. its unlikely to go anywhere, andWP:ROPE is likely to be final outcome, til folks come back with more diffs.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, and the only one who reverted three times to the same content was the one who reported. I reverted twice and after Wikieditor662's comment (perhaps misinterpreted by me), I reverted to the version as it existed before our debate (Gurkubondinn/basically YOUR version). Generally it will not help if you guys continue with "we want it to be portrayed as far right as possible", but when confronted with the reality of your faulty logic (combining "altright/far right" with "conservative", just keep totally silent. ---Deamonpen (talk)04:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I've had theEvie Magazine article on my watchlist because I had been involved with LLM-cleanup and anWP:NPOVN dispute there a few months ago. An editor was using LLMs to attempt to force some "neutral" language into the article, wanting to avoid any mention of "alt-right" or "far-right":
The only edit that I made to this article recently was to fix some refs and footnotes that were incorrectly used, I did not make any material changes to the article.
it will not help if you guys continue with "we want it to be portrayed as far right as possible", but when confronted with the reality of your faulty logic (combining "altright/far right" with "conservative", just keep totally silent.
I am not saying that this is what you meant and I certainly don't want to accuse you or anyone else of anything, but I would resent any implication that I am one of the "you guys" referred to here.
No, I don't mean you. I was referring to people who kept pushing SYNTH versions, or presenting a best source but then suddenly disappeared when it turned out the best source meant the opposite of what they wanted, or deleting the "conservatives" refs without even trying to argue on the Talk pages, and then just kept silent. And I was not saying that you materially changed anything, thus I emphasized that was basically Bluethricecreamman's version. Thank you.Deamonpen (talk)11:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, that's what I thought. Sat on this for a day before saying anything, but I just didn't want to accidentally get lumped in with bad faith editors so thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately I don't think this is the last time we'll see some bad faith interpretations ofWP:NPOV on this article.--Gurkubondinn(talk)11:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
@Deamonpen If you mean me, when you suggest i "just kept silent", it should be noted that in this discussion, you contributed about 1700 words out of the total 2500 words, in the ANI thread you did about 560 out 900 words, and in this thread itself you have 875 out 1300 words. readWP:BLUDGEONing, but I am not required to respond to every repetitive argument when the situation seems very close toWP:1AM at this point. I haven't been involved in the Evie Magazine conflict in a few days because I sometimes wanna do something else, and you should consider the same.ConsiderWP:DROPTHESTICK. I've read some of your arguments but I have seen more noise than signal.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I maintain my opinion that SYNTH is clearly against Wikipedia's policy and you present no reason that can explain why this should be an exception at all. There is no reason to combine sources like that. And I do not think that I was the one who made the repetitive arguments. It seemed you wanted to appeal to others' sense of justice when you repeatedly said that, let's call Evie what it was, it was "both" etc (except of trying to explaining to me why your sentence was not SYNTH). I think you meant well. But you should consider the bigger picture, if we call things "as they are" based on the worst one can find on the media and show undue emphasis on one side (let alone, making SYNTH indiscriminately like that - calling something "liberal communist" will implicate the liberal side in a bad light, and I call on you to drop your stick, too). Even Joseph Stalin does not have "genocide perpetrator" in the first, second, or tenth sentence of his lede. And one can write a totally one-sided Wikipedia article on the heads of Harvard, MIT and Pennsylvania that focuses on the part, they tried to put calls for genocide in perspective. It doesn't mean one should.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I've just never understood: why are things like bludgeoning or dropping the stick often cited, aren't these justessays, meaning you aren't required to follow them?Wikieditor662 (talk)00:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
They are but they are examples ofWP:Disruptive which isnt an essay.
The full range of disruption can never be fully specified but the most common archetypes may be documented in essays and interpreted by admins as necessary.
Here comes the absolute fair standard. Never explained how what you wanted was not SYNTH, kept silent when pushed, acted perfectly A OK when another user reverted *your* version which existed between our debate and had been reinstated by others, but it was me who was disruptive and needed to drop the stick.Deamonpen (talk)04:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Cluster of TAs (related via geolocation) they've been primarily edit warring with: ~2025-31176-58, ~2025-31258-81, ~2025-31327-03, ~2025-33068-56, ~2025-33262-21, ~2025-33041-03, ~2025-32670-93 (might have missed some but that should be enough for anyone with TAIV to find the rest)
04:32, 5 November 2025 - that's not my reason (mine is elevating nonsense right-wing fringe), but it still holds in that an obvious csection is csection even if the name is slightly changed. seek consensus
Assassin's Creed Shadows (ACS) is on my watchlist & I requested page protection after noticing the edit war on 4/5 Nov between the two clusters of TAs. When protection expired today, the behavior restarted. After the two TAs did a round of reversions, I requested PPI again. Thedecline note suggested to bring it here should the edit war escalate.
I'm reporting this TA forWP:4RR at ACS. They've also been engaging in edit war behavior with this other cluster of TAs and a new editor across a few articles for the past month. I've listed that cluster & diffs at other articles for context beyond ACS. I've also limited my diffs to the TA's recent behavior, although anyone with TAIV can look at legacy edits. While they've lightly participated on the ACS talk page, they seem more focused on maintaining their preferred version of the article and saying "seek consensus" without really engaging in that process.Sariel Xilo (talk)22:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
02:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "Utah passed a law that bans pride flags on government buildings. The rainbow is a symbol of God's promise not to flood the Earth again. Not homosexuality."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Slow edit war that has turned into a fast edit war. User is pushing a disputed POV using unreliable sources such as random blogs and Reddit posts. Subject falls withinWP:CT/GG topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)21:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, thank you for reviewing.
I want to clarify that I am willing to stop making changes. I have no interest in any editing battles.
I also have no intention of promoting any controversial viewpoints. If anyone has any questions about my revisions, I am happy to continue the discussion on the article's discussion page and reach a consensus there.
My initial intention has always been to improve the article, not to provoke controversy.
I apologize for any potential violations; please feel free to point them out.
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 should add, however, that edit summaries likethis will further disincline admins against giving them the benefit of the doubt.Daniel Case (talk)19:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked both the reporting temporary account and its obvious sockUser:~2025-34322-11. Edit warring, combative attitude, and failure to get the point makes it rather blatantly clear they have no intention of contributing collaboratively here. --Hammersoft (talk)00:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
02:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC) "According to the prophetic hadith that the rightly guided caliphate would last thirty years, the full period is only completed when Hasan ibn Ali’s six-month rule is included. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali together ruled for about 29 years and 5 months, and after Ali’s death Hasan was duly given bay‘ah in 40 AH and ruled briefly before ceding authority to Muawiyah in 41 AH. His inclusion completes the thirty lunar years foretold by the Prophet ﷺ, making Hasan the final Rashid Caliph"
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[166]
Comments: Edit war for the same edit on the articles "Artificial intelligence" and "History of artificial intelligence". I only showed the diffs for the article "Artificial intelligence". It is rather strange how Researcher1404 has never used any edit summary, and never communicated with any other user despite the insistence of the user Grayfell. The six reverts by anonymous users in the article "History of artificial intelligence" likely originate from Researcher1404, as they follow the same pattern.Alenoach (talk)01:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The userUser talk:~2025-34257-16 deleted a large chunk of information from theTelugu people article withoutseeking cconsensus, and when I reverted it, they reverted me back twice, despite two warnings I gave them on their talk page. Even if the purpose behind their editing was reasonable, which is possible, that doesn't justify edit warning or making large changes without consensus.Wikieditor662 (talk)22:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
HelloWikieditor662, please have a look atWP:BURDEN,WP:ONUS andWP:BLPRESTORE to see a description of three situations whereyou need to find a consensus for restoring, and removals don't require finding a consensus first. Also,"potentially vandalized edit" is not a valid reason for restoring content that was repeatedly removed. Either you're sure or you shouldn't, and you'relegally responsible for content you add or restore to Wikipedia.
That all said, it's not a biography and the topic is extended-confirmed restricted (WP:CT/SASG), so the reverts were fine at very least for this reason, and the edits may be reverted now.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Alright, got it. Can I ask for next time though, what do I do if I don't understand an article well enough and it seems like someone blanked a part of the page of it? Should I not restore it unless I am certain?Wikieditor662 (talk)20:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[172]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[173]
Comments: I have not broken the 3 revert rule, and the user had made no attempt to justify their revert. I removed text that was very clearly in violation of guidelines. And the guidelines only restate what basic common sense tells most people: a table of contents reproduced verbatim is not useful to anyone in an encyclopaedia article about a book.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-34048-87 (talk)18:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I have given multiple warnings on this person's talk page, only to be reverted and ignored. Please also see the talk page of the article in question.Nerd271 (talk)22:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The user has undone my carefully made edits three times, without any attempt to explain why.Why did you undo them? You cannot simply trash someone's careful work with no explanation. That is purely disruptive editing, verging on vandalism when done repeatedly.Oncoars (talk)22:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Note please the user's initial trashing of my careful edits, just eight minutes after I made them, with the inadequate and frankly insulting edit summary of "Better version":[174]Oncoars (talk)22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I took into account one constructive contribution from you. Being more specific about the decline since the 1950s was an improvement.This is the version I recommend.Nerd271 (talk)22:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
No, you undid all of my changes in one inadequately explained edit, as anyone can see from the link I posted. You then reverted my edits two more times, without ever attempting to justify your actions. You have not even been able to accurately describe what I did, let alone explain why you undid it.Oncoars (talk)22:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Nerd271, before the edit war, you had significantly edited the article including the part that was later modified byOncoars. Referring to "bold" editing as ifOncoars had started a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle where you were the "revert" part and they were allegedly required to find a consensus is oversimplifying the situation. Repeatedly describing the changes as "vandalism" after the good-faith explanation was provided is unhelpful and if that behavior continues there or elsewhere, I'll treat it as a personal attack and block your account from editing independently of any edit warring.
The dispute appears to be about two changes, and everything else reverted seems to be collateral damage caused by people doing full reverts instead of selectively changing what they disagree about.
Special:Diff/1322961431 removes a sectionNerd271 hasn't found a consensus for restoring;WP:ONUS applies, it stays out of the article for now, simple.
Special:Diff/1322961334 removes the wording "in recent decades" because ofMOS:RELTIME, according to the talk page explanation, to whichNerd271 failed to provide a counter-argument and focused on discussing conduct instead, which is unhelpful on article talk pages (focus on content).
IfNerd271 agrees thatMOS:RELTIME applies to the wording "in recent decades", they shouldn't restore it. If there are other issues withSpecial:Diff/1322961334, they can be addressed separately butSpecial:Diff/1322961334 shouldn't be reverted then. IfNerd271 disagrees about that manual of style section applying, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. I have removed the unhelpful part of the discussion and you could both re-try discussing that RELTIME aspect.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[183]
Comments:
I see nothing on the article talk page concerning the edit warring done by this IP. On a side note, I've noticed an increase in vandalism and POV pushing since the implementation of this giving-IPs-temporary-names. --Kansas Bear (talk)14:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely The temp account, as NOTHERE. I have also added the page to a partial block on the underlying range for six months.Daniel Case (talk)23:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both users received edit warring warnings fromGreenLipstickLesbian on 16 November:[194][195]. They were also told on the talk page by another uninvolved editor to take a step back:[196]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[197][198]
Comments: Third party report, I have no previous involvement in this article or the underlying disputes. These two users have been edit warring on the article for over a week now and this is not the first 3RR violation.MCE89 (talk)13:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Here is my explanantion to the situation. He had started to add "Yugoslav victory" to the result with an unrelated source that mentions no yugoslav victory in Drenica. He did this repeatedly. I even requested him to state the issues of my article in my talk page and stop editing my page, but he never listened or replied. He is just an example of WP:JUST.AverageSkiptar (talk)13:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
They talked about kosovo in General and not Drenica, it has to mention that they were successful there in Drenica too. Even though it mentions that the greatest suffering happened in Drenica, it didn‘t mention that they were victorious there too. If there is any issue on my article, state the issues in my talk page but stop edit warring. You want to delete my article for having edit wars, even though you started it.AverageSkiptar (talk)13:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
PersistentWP:INCIVIL behavior in these edits:[204][205][206]. Courtesy pinging@C.Fred:, who asked the IP to gain consensus before reverting their edit, but was reverted by the IP regardless.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Another editor warned the IP to gain consensus before reverting:[207]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[208]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[209]
Am I permitted to undo the revert, or should I let someone else do that? The IP has still undone the edit with no consensus on the talk page. –GM23:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[215]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[216]
Comments:
Was redirected here from thedisruptive edits board as I was informed that what this user and I were doing was getting dangerously close to edit warring. Sorry for my behaviour but the information they are repeatedly adding is unsourced and have been warned through the talk page and the edit notes of the article. They have been doing a similar thing on theAdelaide Airport article.QWisps (talk)00:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
(non-admin nosy parker comment) I warned both editors[226][227] shortly before this report was filed and, to their credit, they've both gone to the talkpage finally.[228] Note that BiyangTram and Babarbashirtant should probably be treated as the same editor, as this appears to be somebody using two accounts or two people who know each other IRL engaged in coordinated editing. ([229][230] and[231][232] and[233] - I'm aware they probably need warned about that but I'm a bit too tired to write up something clear and diplomatic enough)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸09:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
HiGreenLipstickLesbian, thank you very much! I've had a look at the technical data and you're right about there being at very least prohibited coordination between two people. Two people who used the same device for editing, that is. Or just one person doing so. Probably the latter.~ ToBeFree (talk)15:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not. I am sure they know perfectly well that they are edit-warring.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[244]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[245]
Comments:
Yesterday, the user reverted some edits I had made without any justification, merely the edit summary "Better version". When I restored my edits, they reverted again, with no explanation. When I repeatedly asked for explanations, they made no serious effort to do so. When I attempted to find out the reason why they had undone even one of my changes, it became clear that they did not understand what my edits had even done (see article talk page). I still have absolutely no idea what they disagreed with.
The user reported me for edit warring; see above on this page. The report was closed with no action. This evening, I was frankly furious to see that they had once again trashed all of my edits without any effort to explain why[246].
If there was some coherent reason that they disagreed with my edits, there would be a basis to discuss the matter and attempt to come to an agreement. If I made some kind of mistake, all they have to do is explain what it is, and I will be glad to learn something. But if the user simply reverts edits they have taken an irrational dislike to, there is no basis for discussion and no possible productive outcome.Oncoars (talk)00:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Why have you blocked me? I edited carefully to improve an article. My edits have been repeatedly reverted with no explanation, by someone who I now see has been blocked repeatedly for similar actions. It is quite unbelievable that you would punish the victim of an attack in exactly the same way as you punish an attacker.Oncoars (talk)07:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
No, this was an attack and I was the victim of it. If the user had reverted saying "I disagree with your changes because of X, Y and Z", and I had simply reverted back, your patronising tone might not have been so jarring. But the user reverted my edits repeatedly without ever providing a coherent reason. They did this even after they had been very clearly warned against doing so following theirearlier attempt to game the system. They have already been blocked *six times* for edit warring and disruption, so clearly they are not deterred by blocks and will continue to edit war and disrupt. I, on the other hand, have been blocked for being the victim of their attack, and that is indeed a deterrent for me to try to improve any articles. I'm certainly not going to do that any more.Oncoars (talk)12:20, 23 November 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.
[248] - Dubious claim sourced to anonymous blog. I reverted citingWP:RS.
[249] - reinserting exact same dubious claim, cited to different source that does not support the claim. Reverted, told the source does not support the claim, asked them to discuss on Talk page and provide a quote. Additionally, edit summary seems to indicate they lack an understanding of whatWP:RS is -- an anonymous blog source is not "credible" per our policies.
[250] - Revert without discussion, combined with personal attack in edit summary.
[251] - Revert without discussion, gibberish added to edit summary.
[252] - Revert without discussion, explicitly refuses to provide a quote of what specific portion of the source they assert supports this claim.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[253] -- note that user has reverted since I posted this, and is not substantively engaging on the talk page but rather still playing games of making vague comments "Just check the last two pages" rather than simply showing their work directly with a quote like I asked.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[254]
Comments: The claim that Kolya is attempting to insert here is of course nonsensical on its face (That the larger a military unit size is, the more talented its leader is -- history is replete with examples of that not being the case and this seems like an egregious case of failing to comprehend basic causal correlation), and is not found in the source that I've seen. But instead of discussion, an editor with literally tens of thousands of edits seems to completely fail to grasp basic concepts such asWP:RS,WP:ONUS, andWP:CONSENSUS. At this point, I'm increasingly concerned that they are knowingly attempting to be deceptive -- there's just no explanation for the repeated refusal to provide a specific quote.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
User was blocked for a week for edit-warring atMen's rights movement. Their first action after the expiration of their block was to make asubstantially similar edit to the same article against consensus. Compare their pre-block edits:
Comments: The specific changes to the page's contents include the unnecessary capitalization ofmen's rights movement, the addition of theweasel wordconsidered, altering the sentence aboutUN Women, and especially the POV removal ofgroups and individuals known as men's rights activists, etc. Despite the user's claim that theyhave no interest in any editing battles, it seems that editing battles are exactly what theyare interested in. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)00:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
You seem very keen on reporting constructive and improvement edits that don't align with your preferences. My modifications are reasonable and can withstand scrutiny. The original version contains "absolute wording" and unreasonable generalizations. For example, the unreasonable use of "UN Women," when in fact this organization has not officially expressed any such views; the viewpoint only comes from one of its web pages. These modifications are intended to optimize wording, avoid unreasonable absolutes, and maintain inclusivity in language. You must see that the original text contains a lot of unverified and absolute content. Much of this content was added by you. Please improve this entry instead of maintaining your personal viewpoint, as that is more constructive. Thank you.Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk)02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I reiterate: I have no interest in participating in any edit war. Anyone concerned can look at the complete edit history; this person continuously blocks any constructive edits and reports and intimidates others.Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk)02:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It seems no warning can be done whenWP:1RR applies? I have tried however to be as clear as possible inmy edit summary.
Comments: The user keeps restoring an old version of theWikipedia:Article titles page from June 2025 in order to argue that our rules forbid templates like{{Verbatim title}} (which they havenominated for deletion – I am the author of the template, which is why I got involved in the debate). The page however talks about how pages are named, not how their titles are displayed. They seem unaware of theWP:1RR rule that applies to policy pages. --Grufo (talk)08:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
This is an ABSURD report. AsThe Banner pointed out,Grufo is trying to push their created templates as policy with ZERO discussion and is surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that those changes are being reverted. If you want to enact new policy file aRFC! Don't just impose your will on everyone. Recommend sanctioning Grufo for this.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)17:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Grufo mentions1RR three times in this short report; why. There's nothing in the linked page that supports their assertion that 1RRapplies to policy pages. Perhaps they are thinking ofWP:BRD, although that applies to all pages, and means that Grufo'sbold edit has beenreverted which should lead todiscussion on the talk page. On the talk page, not via noticeboard reports which are not neutral venues of discussion but attempts to weaponise Wikipedia's processes to gain the upperhand in an editing dispute. I agree with Zackmann08 that if any editor should face sanctions, it is not Gonnym.—Fortuna,imperatrix17:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
HiFortuna. If you try to edit the page, you get this warning (emphasis mine):
Attention:
You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page.Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. See content changes to policies and guidelines for more details.
That is why I am here: If I had ignored that warning and had in turn reverted Gonnym's edit, I would have incurred in the sameWP:1RR violation. --Grufo (talk)17:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
No violation -- the operative word here isencouraged. The fact that policy pages are expected to reflect a strong community consensus is an overriding principle here: Gonnym is clearly in the right for reverting an undiscussed change to a policy page. This doesn't give infinite license to revert--if the edit war had continued, sanctions on both sides would likely have been appropriate--but two reverts of a clearly contested attempt to change policy seems to be within appropriate bounds of conduct.signed,Rosguilltalk17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Not all of these names performed the actual reverts reported but they are all obviously the same editor (maybe running with cookies disabled. They are not trying to present the appearance of multiple editors so this is not a case for SPI.) Because of the rapidly-changing temp accounts, I suspect that any intervention will have to be based on IP addresses. I have not checked the IP addresses used by these accounts.
Note that I performed four other edits in that time period but only two were reverts; the other two were non-revert adjustments of citation metadata.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User talk:~2025-36059-60, 13:13 24-Nov;Acknowledgement of receiving the warning before the most recent revert:[266]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See many messages onTalk:Joan L. Mitchell; final revert continued after both that discussion and 3RR warning.
Comments: For the record, Itook the"edit war" to the talk page. However, the way temporary accounts are assigned names should be changed so that they are a hash of the IP address, and therefore more stable than what is seen in the above list. Another suggestion is to assign temporary accounts temporary user names, so other editors can refer to "Bob1234" instead of "2025-36106-70". --~2025-36106-70 (talk)02:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Page protected (full) for 3 days. Honestly I can't tell if this dispute is still underway. Leave me a note on my talk page if you both have consensus to lift the protection earlier. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Stale. The reverting has stopped, and perWP:NOTPUNITIVE there is no policy-based reason to block or take administrative action.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours.I notice that the most recent revert was from the IP; as an uninvolved admin, I can assure you that wasnot intended as any endorsement of any state of the article.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:33, 27 October 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. However, to be honest, looking briefly at the talk page discussion, this is not something that should be simply solved by one administrator, but possibly needs a wider look atArbitration enforcement as it falls under the South Asia contentious topic. I'd recommend going there.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Warned The issue is relatively stale for the minute, but be advised I will block either of you if I see any more reverts. You areboth edit warring. Stop reverting each other and discuss the issues.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)10:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked for a period of24 hours byToBeFreeDaniel Case (talk)19:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)![[229]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aManasbal_Lake_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[230]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aManasbal_Lake_from_the_top_of_mountain.jpg){kind=link}