Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive498

PahlaviFan reported by PJK 1993 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PahlaviFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
I'm carrying over an earlier discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Poland. User PahlaviFan has engaged in disruptive editing on the Poland page by refusing to accept a consensus reached on the Talk:Poland page, and continues to remove reliable reference sources, which do not fit their point of view, also all the while, user PahlaviFan has not presented a reference source to validate their claims. So, no reliable reference source has been presented, yet the user continues to revert the text back to a dubious claim. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add that PahlaviFan's behaviour could be seen as vandalism. It was brought to their attention that the "source" which they initially presented simply does not say what they are claiming it says- not even close. The continued insertion of a dubious and unsourced claim can be viewed as a deliberate act to propagate a myth or a hoax on Wikipedia. While at the same time removing reliable reference sources which contradict their views. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there, and you're in fact deleting referenced, consensus-established parts. The Britannica highlights statehood (territorial unit) preceding the baptism.PahlaviFan (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let me explain again for you. 4 editors after a long discussion which took place over several days agreed to the date of 966, then you jumped in and started reverting stuff and adding dubious and unsourced material. --PJK 1993 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello PJK 1993 and welcome to Wikipedia. Your very first edit to Wikipedia has been starting an RfC about this. You then started an edit war and took people to ANI and this noticeboard here.

Please just stop and find something else to do. You've made your point, now let the discussions run. People are discussing on the article's talk page, great. You don't need to dominate the discussion, you don't need to edit the article during the dispute and you don't need to throw reports all around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, thank you for your action. Indeed, it is quite important to have a meaningful and academically honest discussion, however the statements inserted into Wikipedia need verifiability and need to be accurate. When an editor is changing or added something this needs a source and the source needs to say exactly that. There is no point in having a discussion about a made up claim and a source, which says nothing of the sort. --PJK 1993 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993, as long as you are adding content, such as "Baptism of Poland" or "14 April 966", you are required to find a consensus for its inclusion instead of doing so repeatedly (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, WP:EW). If you are right, someone else will do it sooner or later; there is no need for this to be done by you. As it turns out, PahlaviFan is a sockpuppet, which is good because else Special:Diff/1304214697 would have led to an edit warring block. When you have been edit warring about this recently, or when you started the RfC about it, you're not in a position to determine if a consensus has already been reached.

If you are concerned about the verifiability of a statement and want to insist on keeping it out of the article until properly verifiable and a consensus is found, you can remove the disputed claim, such as the infobox parameter. You then have WP:BURDEN in your favor. You don't if you add disputed material yourselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User:JoyfullySmile reported by User:Welcometothenewmillenium (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Big Brother 26 (American season) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoyfullySmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1252885888: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_26_(American_season): [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

• Both OP and subject past WP:3RR and blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

31.96.110.34 and related IPs reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Page protected)

Page: Pakistan–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

31.96.110.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

31.112.160.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

31.112.160.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1300655355, with some variation and attempts to reintroduce effectively the same content about airlines, while leaving be the Religion content whose removal is apparently not in dispute but which was caught in the crossfire of some of the earlier reverts.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. August 5 by 31.96
2. July 28 by 31...108
3. July 27 by 31...108
4. July 25 by 31...108
5. July 24 by 31...108
6. July 21 by 31...108
7. July 15 by 31...108
8. July 14 by 31...229

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1301757529

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermaLink/1302657750

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1304347460

Comments:

While the exact text has varied a bit, this IP range has persistently attempted to add WP:UNDUE content about "Western" airlines, particularly British Airways, and particularly emphasizing "100 years of continued service" (in the most recent revert, this becomes "95 years of flights in 2019"). IP has not offered any policy-based arguments for their edits on the talk page, and is contested by myself and another editor who was called in via 3O. Given the difference in range but similarity in behavior in the most recent IP's edits, my guess is that is likely a different device operated by the same person. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging ToBeFree who had asked to be notified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Dreamweaver 2222 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked)

Page: Santhosh Balaraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dreamweaver 2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
User has continued past multiple vandalism and sourcing warnings and has not responded on talk page. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Revert warring to add an unsourced date of birth to Santhosh Balaraj. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:OCDD August 3 2025

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.

---

There was already this discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Unfortunately, considering that ANI thread, I think this user has had way too many warnings and it is time for them to be blocked indefinitely. Looking at the ANI thread, they have had way too many chances dating back 2 or 3 years. Many of their recent contributions such as this: , , they persistently edit warred and unexplained their changes, when I explained my changes and when they reverted they did not explain theirs. In many times they re removed content without explaining why it is being removed. It feels like they claim they own the encyclopaedia. No single user owns the encyclopaedia. After 2 edit warring blocks for this user, I think there should be no more chances. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If a block is decided by the admins, so be it. But YOUR behavior should 100% be put to a halt. I have had enough of your creepy stalking. Acting like a goody two shoes does not change the fact that you are actively targeting me. And I am sick and tired of your stalking and obsession. You need to be blocked because you obsess over users who have friction with you. You target them, you mass revert and make mistakes. You do not do research and claim to follow rules when you don't. OCDD (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

OCDD It is not you as a User I am targeting. It is these unexplained changes I am targeting. Here are some of your other accusation of other users: , . Could you also specify your changes? (Like your removal of content when you persistently do not leave an edit summary?). Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:39, 6 August 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.

User:Greenturtle1 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Bảo Đại (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Greenturtle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 04:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Incorporated citations from reputable academic journals and institutions, substantiated by peer-reviewed research. Restored previously removed content that aligns with scholarly standards and was erroneously flagged as disruptive."
   2. 04:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Incorporated citations from reputable academic journals and institutions, substantiated by peer-reviewed research. Restored previously removed content that aligns with scholarly standards and was erroneously flagged as disruptive."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 02:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
   2. 02:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) to 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions"
   2. 20:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions"
   3. 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
4. 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added"
5. 09:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "journal article context citation added"
6. 06:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added"
7. 06:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC) "citations added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bảo Đại."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article was semi-protected on 2 August 2025 for 1 year by ToBeFree due to edit-warring between IP socks of blocked LTA editors.

A newly autoconfirmed account, Greenturtle1, is repeatedly reintroducing changes by one of the sets of IPs. Past 3RR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They're also "thanking" themselves from IPs that geolocate to the same area as each other. Not a good look. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: p-blocked for two weeks.)

Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Now resorting to "spitting out his dummy" WP:POINTY edits on other British Empire related articles such as British Indian Ocean Territory and British Overseas Territories. Suggest a topic ban on any related article. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

And they continue [], yep T ban. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, 10mmsocket, you deleted my input on your talk page. Please don't delete messages on talk pages. TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• TheIconic'Qwertyuiop', User:10mmsocket was perfectly justified in doing so, and bringing that up is quite irrelevant for this report. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Drmies thank you. @TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' if you read the comment you'll see I said your post was more suitable for the talk page of the article where you are edit warring. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Slatersteven, please tell me that we are not warring here over the word "final", because that is an easy fix. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  As I say on the talk page, I also question whether this even deserves a mention at this time (if at all). Nor am I alone in having expressed that doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  The war was over the word "final". He claimed that I was adding things without explicitly mentioning it, when in reality, he knew what I was writing because he was the one deleting everything, meaning that logically, he would know that I was re-adding everything he deleted and would know that I was adding citations to the paragraph. Then he cleared everything saying I was going overly into detail. I was seeking consensus for shortening the article using two sentences. Although I couldn't reach consensus, I re-added it and thought that a short section would be alright. Steven said "How do we know this will be the last one (for a start), this felt insulting but I thought, 'Oh, okay, he must have something else in mind', seeing as he already did that on the BE talk page, and finally 10mmsocket jumped in and said "Final handover is very unlikely to be true", despite him not even reading the whole sentence, which was "east of the mainland in Great Britain", and denied this when I told him about it, then started accusing me of WP:POINTY, which did take place because, at this point in time, I thought it would be suitable to change 14 to 13 because of what's going on in the Chagos right now. But take my opinion with a pinch of salt. TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Qwerty, there is no doubt you were edit warring on British Empire and I am going to block you from editing that article. I see there is some discussion on the talk page over whether a trimmed version of your initial huge edit is warranted; you may contribute there, but please do so in a courteous and collegial manner. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:179.119.4.72 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked)

Page: Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 179.119.4.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Is this really a dummy edit?"
2. 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Wikipedia guidelines state that any editor can contribute to or modify any article (WP:OWN)."
3. 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "I’m an experienced contributor currently unable to log in to the English Wikipedia. This article has been flagged as misinformation by mainstream Brazilian media (see: https://claudiodantas.com.br/livro-de-alexandre-de-moraes-erros-crassos). If you believe there is something incorrect or inappropriate, please clarify specifically what needs to be fixed."
4. 00:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverting previous user’s revert. The prior edit was not an automated copy-paste but aimed to correct errors (typos, adding Second Circuit reversal date November 2, 1917, and citation 246 F. 24) and improve structure (Background, Decision, Appeal, Legacy sections) using reliable sources (FSC, FIRE). These changes are now integrated into the existing article to enhance accuracy and readability, avoiding duplication, with proper attribution."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 2025-08-06T08:04:04Z

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be pasting LLM output directly into the middle of the article, duplicating sections. Edit summary You will have to censor me and block the page is less than constructive here. tony 12:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Honestly, this editor's behavior appears to be nonsense, I hardly think the Brazilian press has flagged the article as misinformation, but for now I'm pageblocking and monitoring. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Ozan33Ankara reported by User:GoldenDragonHorn (Result: full protection for three days)

Page: Sultanate of Mogadishu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ozan33Ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: Editor in question will not compromise or collaborate, even when his POV and sources have been retained in the article, he has opted to remove modern sources without actually discussing them, has repeatedly used the RFC and the DRN platforms as devices to threaten the other parties with (even when a request or a new ticket has been welcomed by the latter) which is contrary to what they were originally intended for, which is resolution, but unfortunately based on his extensive pattern of disruptive behaviour, such as ignoring the points of other editors, his clear pushing of a pro-Arab narrative in the biographies and histories of non-Arab figures and polities, while locking heads with multiple different editors from diverse backgrounds in the form of edit wars makes the prospect of a resolution very slim. GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protected in full for three days. Ankara hasn’t yet violated 3RR, but the talk page discussion proves why the Horn of Africa is a contentious topić (one I’m physically close to at the moment, ironically) and I will be tagging the talk page after I’m done) I ufrge you both to get other people involved so as to establish consensus in the enforced break you now have. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, this is a case where one user has reverted three different editors and made a 4th revert with what might be perceived as a minor change to an outside observer (10th century to 13th century) but has major ramifications on the article's historic timeline, also other people are already involved. Unfortunately you have placed the protection tag on a version that has been rejected by several editors, and in the process have rewarded his disruptive behaviour. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the status quo ante from before the most recent dispute began on the 5th. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:OCDD reported by User:Servite et contribuere (Result: Blocked two weeks)

Page: Lovely Lolla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: OCDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 11:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 11:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304495199 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
   2. 11:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 10:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304484465 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
3. 08:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304480604 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
4. 08:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 09:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lovely Lolla."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have given them warnings, I gave reasons for revert, they did not. I also warned them to give a valid reason for removal in the edit summary and they persistently ignored me. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Further comments I feel like by their history, they would have tried to get very defensive about all their edits. They don't seem to want to collaborate. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the reporting editor also made 4 reverts on that article within a 24 hour period. Should probably be blocked as well, as they are obviously aware of the rule. More general issues of interaction between the two (with one uncommunicative and one stalker-like) can be hashed out at ANI. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; Servite et contribuere doesn't have OCDD's block log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wonder29 reported by User:Nikkimaria (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Richard Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wonder29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 23:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Revert"
3. 23:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304584034 by Aza24 (talk)"
4. 23:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304582934 by Aza24 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC) to 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Richard Wagner

Comments:

In addition to the reverts listed above, the initial edit was a restoration of a proposed change that received clear consensus against implementation when it was discussed last year. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No consensus was established. That is a lie. It was a work in development. I made changes others suggested and said I would leave several months for discussion then proceed with changes. Which I did. If you want to dispute that and establish a formal consensus against the new infobox, then hold a RFC with formal vote.

Wonder29 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You wanted to make an addition; your addition was opposed and no consensus was established in favour of it; you cannot just proceed anyways and then demand others get consensus to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

My addition was also not opposed by some, and no consensus in favour to not proceed with it. This is Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia that anybody can edit. While there was much discussion you are trying to make allegations of a consensus which is simply false.

Wonder29 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Dude! One person supported it and four people opposed it! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The box was under development so what was supported and opposed is meaningless as it was an evolving process. It was a call for input, not a vote to establish consensus. If you would like to make formal vote for consensus now that it is finalized, by all means. But don't say there was a consensus when there was not.

Wonder29 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Thein Htike San 1999 reported by User:KhantWiki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Zaw Min Tun (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thein Htike San 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
{{The article of Zaw Min Tun needs stable and immediate page protection due to vandalism and persistent edit-warring from multiple users, including the reported user. The user User:Thein Htike San 1999 has engaged in at least five reverts between 20 July and 6 August 2025, repeatedly restoring disruptive edits without engaging in talk page discussion. The user began the edit-warring behavior on 20 July 2025 and has not stopped despite ongoing reversions and attempts at stabilization. Immediate administrative action is requested.}}

Blocked – Indef by User:Ymblanter for WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wasdpower reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Turkish invasion of Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wasdpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: Repeatedly adding the same non-WP:NPOV content, reverted by four editors, including Cluebot.

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Partially blocked 2 years)

Page: Bluebird K7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.3.122.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "Undone revisition, link not required in this section as subject covered in Search and Recovery of Bluebird K7"
2. <no edit summary>
3. <no edit summary>

There is a long history involving Bluebird K7 and User talk:80.3.122.252 over a couple of years. Massive WP:NPOV failure, wrapped in the usual behavioural problems of attacks on other users, edit-warring and block. Their contribs history has a particular single focus, one that's far from constructive. An issue that's much wider than on-wiki.

An article expanding on one section of this history has recently been added: Search and Recovery of Bluebird K7 Obviously it ought to be linked from Bluebird K7, which has been done as:

See also: Search and Recovery of Bluebird K7

80.3.122.252 has been repeatedly reverting to delete this link. Leaving no link from K7 to the recovery article. Which is ridiculous. No attempt to discuss this, beyond the first edit summary. Which I can't make any sense of.

This is just basic edit-warring, and we have no time for such things here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User talk:80.3.122.252#August 2025

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 years ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Washington Port reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Money services business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Washington Port (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original instrodution or promotional text

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert
2. Second revert
3. Third revert
4. Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [to follow]

Comments:

• Edit warring to restore what appears to be farily blatant promotional content sourced to the service's own website.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Disregard, already blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Chrisahn reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Page protected)

Page: 1990 East German general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chrisahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chrisahn moved the article Democratic Awakening to Democratic Beginning in 2021 (without discussion). This move was reversed in 2025 (also without discussion). Chrisahn has been unable to restore their preferred title, but has been edit warring to restore 'Democratic Beginning' to the election article (and on the main article on the party itself), and has now exceeded 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:56, 7 August 2025
2. 20:02, 7 August 2025
3. 20:07, 7 August 2025
4. 20:15, 7 August 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

• Chrisahn, thoughts beyond "OK"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• A few claims by Number 57 aren't quite correct. "Chrisahn moved the article in 2021 (without discussion)" I moved the page because another user had suggested it years earlier. I moved it to the name used in the only English-language source that was in the article. On the other hand, the move in April 2025 was indeed undiscussed and unsourced. "Chrisahn has been unable to restore their preferred title" I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I didn't even try to move the page back. I'm not an admin, I can't delete the redirect. "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" N57 posted that after I posted a source on N57's talk page. Before that, I had tried to inform N57 that my edits were backed by a source, but N57 probably didn't really read my edit summaries and kept reverting me. Anyway, we're now engaged in a discussion at Talk:Democratic Beginning#Title. I hope we can find a good solution to this unsolvable problem. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Single-revision redirects can be overwritten without administrative privileges when reverting a page move. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think 2021 is long enough ago to consider the recent move a controversial one rather than a revert of a controversial move. The move can be proposed and discussed using the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Page protected (Democratic Beginning). Regarding 1990 East German general election, I guess no action is needed as Number 57's concerns seem to have been about a now-obsolete state of the target page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Turkish Patriot1974 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of military flags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Turkish Patriot1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This guy has been repeatedly adding the same flag to the same pages despite multiple editors repeatedly removing it. An SPI investigation has already been started.

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1304847097

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_flag&diff=prev&oldid=1304848007 Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

User:JjEeEeNn reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Adolphus I, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JjEeEeNn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Obvious sock puppetry, as reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Talia Lavin

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis mine)

Polygnotus (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by @Canterbury Tail: Polygnotus (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:98.15.243.103 (Result: Declined)

Al Franken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Information about Al Franken's self-described religious beliefs from a credible source has been described as "trivia" and reverted three times with no discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.243.103 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no edit war there yet. However, I see and have undone at least one violation of WP:BLPRESTORE from the reporter. Find a consensus on the talk page before restoring disputed material about living people, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Mariab777 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Rita Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mariab777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:17 UTC Aug 8,
2. 11:41 UTC Aug 9,
3. 18:18 UTC Aug 9,
4. 20:28 UTC Aug 9,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
This user has been edit warring for two weeks over the same birthplace issue but has chosen to use all-caps shouting threats in her edit summaries rather than to participate in the talk page discussion. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:208.77.56.242 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Nahko and Medicine for the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nahko_and_Medicine_for_the_People&diff=prev&oldid=1304288338
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nahko_and_Medicine_for_the_People&diff=prev&oldid=1304608178
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nahko_and_Medicine_for_the_People&diff=prev&oldid=1304719187
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nahko_and_Medicine_for_the_People&diff=prev&oldid=1304781058

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku#You_are_edit_warring_with_me_and_telling_me_to_stop_edit_warring_with_you

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nahko_and_Medicine_for_the_People#User_Revirvlkodlaku_keeps_removing/ruining_my_rightful_edits

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: I don't understand how to do this. The "Read me" section does not explain how to follow the required process. It just shows a bunch of codes, but I don't know coding, so I have no idea how to use them. But I did what I could within my realm of understanding by warning him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku&diff=prev&oldid=1305084316

Comments:

I may be guilty of edit warring here myself, I really don't know. I find the rules of Wikipedia extensive, overwhelming, and confusing, so I can't tell if I've done wrong alongside Revirvlkodlaku or not, but I do know that my information that I've been fighting to retain on the Nahko page is officially sourced, for which I've provided a link, while his information seems to be baseless at worst and, at best, not found on the band's official website to which I've repeatedly linked him. By the way, I've tried putting links (for the link page and user page) and this comment within the provided punctuation (such as within the {{ symbols here) but they disappear when I click "Show preview", so I'm including them separately outside of the punctuation. Again, I don't know coding, so this whole process is very confusing to me. This is the best I can do. Apologies if I've done any part of this process incorrectly. I'm also trying to put Revirvlkodlaku's user name where it says to, but it just disappears from the post, so I'm at a loss.208.77.56.242 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku and 208.77.56.242, you'll both need to focus on content on the article's talk page instead of addressing each others' actions and tone, both of which are irrelevant to the content decision. To illustrate the problem, I have removed some of the most unnecessary material from your comments here (and then restored them; I only needed something to link to).

And as long as there is no consensus about which of the two versions of the content should be included, it shouldn't be re-added. If you can find something you both can agree on, such as "On the Verge (2024)" with no additional text, then you can of course add that.

When the discussion about the content has reached a point where no further arguments can be presented, requesting a third opinion is indeed a good idea. Disengaging is also fine as long as you don't continue editing the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

User:81.106.144.198 reported by User:Czello (Result: Site blocked)

Page: Grand Slam (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 81.106.144.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was blocked for 3RR violations on this page previously (see block log). Immeditately after their block ended they resumed their edit war, reinstating the disputed section.

This actually went unnoticed for the next couple of weeks, and then I removed the section again for the same reasons as before. Nonetheless the user has once again re-added it without any kind of discussion.

It's clear that they do not intend to WP:DROPTHESTICK and will continue to edit war despite the previous short block. — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week by EvergreenFir Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Forever thinking6 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Indef)

Page: Thomas Skinner (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Forever thinking6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC) to 05:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC) "Correct school information added. It keeps being changed to incorrect information by people who are trying to attack Tom."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on this page after multiple warnings, has immediately started edit warring again in the exact same way. GraziePrego (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from the article Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:142.126.245.171 reported by User:Jiltedsquirrel (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Materials science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 142.126.245.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305116949 by Jiltedsquirrel (talk)"
2. 04:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305116808 by 45dogs (talk)"
3. 04:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305116721 by 45dogs (talk)"
4. 04:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305116230 by Remsense (talk)"
5. 04:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1303560894 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing." [performed by User:Remsense]
2. 04:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule." [performed by User:45dogs]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned by other editors on their talk page - repeat reverts of the same edits from multiple editors. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 04:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Now an additional four reverts since this notice was posted. Nil🥝 05:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It's unbelievable. 20m00 🗩 05:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

They've now revealed themselves to be the LTA with a history of vandalising that page (due to a vendetta they have against a certain admin). I've reported to AIV (as that has more eyes normally), so hopefully they'll be blocked soon. Nil🥝 05:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO obvious vandal, their recent edits are calling users a slew of inappropriate things. jolielover♥talk 05:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:217.74.147.78 reported by User:Qwerty123M (Result: Page protected)

Page: Gareth Ward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 217.74.147.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305145761 by WWGB (talk) Stop vandalizing the article, the sources are clear that he has been convicted of raping multiple men."
2. 09:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305145604 by 116.255.54.38 (talk) Stop vandalizing the article, he has been convicted of raping multiple men, and the sources are clear on that."
3. 09:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305140289 by Qwerty123M (talk) He has definitely come out by raping men, stop vandalizing the article."
4. 08:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305136314 by Qwerty123M (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Gareth Ward."
2. 09:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gareth Ward."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced (to my knowledge) information. Edit warring by repeatedly reverting to the erroneous revision. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:WikinonBot4 reported by User:Lavalizard101 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WikinonBot4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305197908 by Lavalizard101 (talk)"
2. 16:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 02:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305023284 by Gilgenk (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 16:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC) "/* August 2025 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WikinonBot4 warned that per WP:BRD/WP:ONUS its on them to gain consensus, instead they refuse to discuss and have resorted to incivility and personal attacks see the edit just before the above edit at 16:47 You appear to be delusional. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

User has been told to talk it to the article talk page and has ignored ONUS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that he has blown through 3rr with 9 reverts today, although I have also broken 3rr with 8 (hence the {{whale}} on my talk page. He has been at it for months reverting multiple users and IPs, who edit the paragraphs in anyway, displaying WP:OWNERSHIP problems. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

THey have accused me of harrassing them with many harassing messages for my attempts to get them to discuss, accusing me of obvious bias, having no logical reason for reverting them etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

User is finally discussing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think this may be a WP:CIR issue, I asked a direct Yes or No question and the user skirts round the question not answering. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

this is wikinonbot4 responding to above. I hope this is the correct place and way of responding. here is my response:

Under WP:RSPYT, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the origin of its content. In this case, the video is published on the official channel of Rabbi Gavriel Bechhoffer, a widely recognized and respected Orthodox rabbi and rabbinical court judge on the Beth Din of America. He is a notable public figure with an established reputation for expertise in Jewish law, meeting the criteria in WP:SELFPUB for self-published expert sources.

The video directly quotes primary source material (Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach by Aharon Yaakov Lieberman) and includes Rabbi Bechhoffer’s own scholarly interpretation that the Rambam did not rule out the possibility of Moshiach arising from the dead according to halacha. This use is consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing policy:

The author is an established subject-matter expert.

The content is from the expert’s own official channel.

The statement is about the subject matter in which the author is recognized as an authority.

Given these factors, the video should be treated as a reliable source in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:100c:b011:2a01:c63:7096:1026:1b34 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 2024 United States presidential election in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:100c:b011:2a01:c63:7096:1026:1b34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:54 UTC, August 10:
2. 22:24 UTC, August 10:
3. 22:38 UTC, August 10:
4. 23:08 UTC, August 10:
5. 23:18 UTC, August 10:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
The /40 of this IP range was partially blocked last November for weaponizing the page protection request system. This person is still editing Wikipedia for political reasons, pushing Trumpian ideology by removing criticism and praise. The main problem is that they are providing their own political analysis in violation of WP:No original research, and they are edit-warring without regard for 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a mobile IP address. I have no connection with whoever edited last year. I also would like to point out that you reverted my edits first, making you subject to 3RR, refused to clarify why other than absurdly vague statements, and are clearly showing your political bias by assuming bad faith and calling me “Trumpian.” 2600:100C:B011:2A01:C63:7096:1026:1B34 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the edit in which you state I am providing original research is literally a direct restatement of the background section of the page, which you never once bothered to change or revert. 2600:100C:B011:2A01:C63:7096:1026:1B34 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Upwomen reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Upwomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC) "This is the sex discrimination Act 1984!"
2. 04:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC) "Possible pregnancy?"
3. 04:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC) "Sex Discrimination Act 1984"
4. 04:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Sex discrimination act */ new section"
2. 04:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Sex discrimination act */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly trying to remove accurate information from the opening of the SDA. (Also violating NPOV over on Tickle v Giggle adding "males who identify as females" every time trans women are mentioned.) GraziePrego (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

They have now made a third revert on Tickle v Giggle and are paying no attention to any warnings, I strongly suspect they will break 3RR on there imminently. GraziePrego (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I was correct, so that's 4 reverts by @Upwomen on the Sex discrimination act, and 4 reverts on Tickle v Giggle. I've done my 3 on each so I cannot revert anymore. GraziePrego (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tickle v Giggle says that GENSEX CTOP procedures apply, so this user probably shouldn't be editing there regardless? Nil🥝 04:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours as an arbitration enforcement action, as the last edit came in after the CTOP warning. Next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Ronherry reported by User:MadelynnSienna (Result: Both blocked )

Page: The Life of a Showgirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronherry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305489947

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305492258
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305491791
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305491189
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305490053

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Life_of_a_Showgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1305492258

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronherry&diff=prev&oldid=1305489128

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronherry&diff=prev&oldid=1305492334

Comments:
I have repeatedly asked them to cite their sources, but they refuse to do so. Instead, they have been incredibly rude in their discussions both on their and the page's talk page (calling me dense and a disruptive fan-editor for having a different point of view). Additionally, the user keeps deleting the information other users add to the page with appropriate citations under the belief that it is irrelevant. Yet, someone tries to do the same to them (and edit out irrelevant information in their work) they refuse to accept it.

Diffs of your reverts:

1. First
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth

Diffs of attempts at resolving the ground issue:

1. 1
2. 2

I was never rude; only direct and honest. There are enough sources cited, but the user refused to read the URL or the article body. Responding to "Additionally, the user keeps deleting the information other users add to the page that are not to their liking.", that is false. Have I removed the superfluous fancruft? yes. This is a brand new article about a hot topic, so obviously an influx of Swiftie IP and new users are going to add poorly written/organized content which needed copyediting and weeding out. ℛonherry☘ 11:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article only. Continue your discussion on the talk page, and other editors can assess the consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:189.112.119.57 reported by User:Robby.is.on (Result: Page protected)

Page: Dani Olmo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.112.119.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

This earlier change from 26 June was followed more reverts from likely the same user but from a different IP:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Pinging the involved @Joe Sins: Robby.is.on (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wrenched reported by User:45dogs (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Romance (love) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wrenched (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* The cultural phenomenon */ Removed section for following reasons: Information laid out is incorrect, that is not the conceptualisation of love in any culture; "the cultural phenomenon" doesn't mean anything; the references provided are all by the same author; almost all the references provided are said author's random blog; said author provides no references for almost any claim he makes and, when he does, he references himself; language used clearly biased."
2. 00:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* The sociological definition */ Removed section for following reasons: Information laid out is incorrect, that is not any of the ways love is conceptualised in sociology; the references provided are all by the same author; almost all the references provided are said author's random blog; said author provides no references for almost any claim he makes and, when he does, he references himself; language used clearly biased."
3. 22:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305754504 by ShiveryPeaks (talk)"
4. 21:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "/* The sociological definition */ Deleted both the sociological and psychological definitions of romantic love because they were complete and utter nonsense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Interpersonal relationship "/* Reasons for removing "physical attraction" from "love" */ Reply"

Comments:

Discussion doesn't seem to be working, for either editor 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Automated responses warning me off defending myself and allowing someone to repeatedly write false information whilst I'm told to not fix it isn't "discussion". I cannot try to mediate with the person who has decided to start an editing war with me because he immediately started harassing me. Wrenched (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page earlier, and they left a reply to me implying that I wanted to "f***" the author of the book which is cited in the article.

Please see my talk page comments here Talk:Romance_(love)#definitions, as I simply have no idea why this user is even trying to remove the content in question. It is not contentious at all. They seem to be simply unaware that this is a scholarly definition of the term. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Recommend a block, as the editor-in-questoin is showing 'no signs' of stopping. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolute pussies the lot ae ye Wrenched (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the block. The edits in question are unexplained content removal, hence why I reverted them as many times as I was allowed to. The user has not even explained why they have an issue with the content in question. (What the user states in their edit summaries is not correct. The definition they are trying to remove is widely-accepted. The citations in question are reliable, and the fact that there's only one author being cited in that paragraph doesn't matter, as the book published by Springer is a review.) The content they are trying to remove (history of the term "romantic love") is also required to be present to fix the quality templates at the top of the article.

Instead of trying to talk about it, the user has repeatedly insulted me, sometimes in vulgar ways (as they've even done here, proving they are not interested in cooperating). ShiveryPeaks (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

ShiveryPeaks, "unexplained removal" is only meant to refer to removal that has no explanation. Even edit summaries that are "not correct" can give an explanation. If you disagree, pursue dispute resolution. We revert unexplained removal when it is truly unexplained, for instance when the edit summary is blank, obviously misleading ("fixed typo"), or nonsensical. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User:87.1.16.6 reported by User:FromCzech (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.1.16.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13 August, 22:52 CET
2. 14 August, 7:42
3. 14 August, 7:59
4. 14 August, 8:24
5. 14 August, 8:39

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: The user is not interested in communicating in the discussion, nor does he fill out the Edit summary. His actions were reverted by two users, but this does not discourage him from continuing. FromCzech (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User:114.23.114.71 reported by User:Meters (Result: Protected)

Page: 2025 Tasman District Council election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 114.23.114.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
2. 10:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
3. 10:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305837372 by Criticize (talk)"
4. 10:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
5. 10:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
6. 10:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
7. 10:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305832622 by Criticize (talk)"
8. 10:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
9. 10:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305830689 by TheLoyalOrder (talk)"
10. 10:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
11. 10:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
12. 09:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
13. Consecutive edits made from 09:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC) to 09:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    1. 09:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Community boards */"
14. 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1305827066 by 114.23.114.71 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tasman_District_Council_election&diff=prev&oldid=1305837020

Comments:

IP claiming to be the candidate is edit warring to remove the sourced description of himself and replace it with an unsourced description. Has responded on his talk page so is aware of COI, edit warring, RS, article talk page thread, etc, but continues to make his edit. Meters (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

user:Criticize has also broken WP:3RR in reverting these edits, without claiming a 3RR exemption. I have just warned them and suggested that they self-revert their latest. Meters (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please accept my deep apologies. Meters, I'm confused. I thought the WP:3RR does not apply to users who revert vandalism and content that stands against Wikipedia's policies. I will kindly step away from the platform. Thank you for your honesty.‎ Criticize (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP's edits were not vandalism. You might be able to claim that this falls under the unsourced BLP material exemption of WP:3RRNO, but you should have stated that in your edit summaries then. You self-reverted once you were warned, and stated that you will back off, so you've done what you can. The IP continued to make the edit after having been warned, and more than once. Meters (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally, User:Criticize. Wikipedians argue all the time about the tiniest issues. This is a good thing (and perhaps why en.wiki is still relevant as a platform). You are correct in your assumption that 3RR has certain limitations. I was wrong for labelling your edits as vandalism; this was due to somewhat 1) my shallow reading of the situation and 2) my good faith in the requester's report at WP:RFPP. The edits were edit warring, because "did not/did too" is always a bad look in pagespace. When you hit the two revert threshold, you probably should hold up and just engage in talk with the other contributor(s). I can say on the merits, there appears to be pagespace irregularities from a WP:COI standpoint. BusterD (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protected by BusterD, though I would recommend they modify the protection rationale from "vandalism", as the discussion here shows it isn't. edit I've gone ahead and changed the protection rationale to what (I assume) is consensus here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Any time I see rapid edit warring of the same edit, by multiple accounts and ips my vandalism flag is activated. Thanks, Ritchie333 for correcting my rationale. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User: Valboo reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Page: The Smiths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:10, 12 August 2025

Repeated blanking of a sourced paragraph.

This has been stable for some time, although I've not gone back to find just when it was added (it relates to 2023). There are reasonable explanations of the opposing viewpoints at the article talk: page link below.

Added nearly a year ago: "Popcornfud (talk | contribs) added this on 30 August 2024 02:26." Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a coherent and sourced paragraph covering an incident in 2023 when a performance at Glastonbury (that's quite big, in music terms) covered songs by The Smiths, without involving the Smiths' lead singer. Who has a somewhat tarnished popularity these days, despite which the songs and band are still popular. Glasto also has a long tradition of nostalgia. This was in no way a 'tribute act'. The band concerned (and some singer called 'Rick Astley', whoever he might be) have a perfectly good career of their own. This was a pretty much one-off incident, to put Smiths music live at Glasto again, because it wouldn't happen otherwise. It was well received and well-reviewed (cited).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "tribute band, they didn't release any music influenced by the group"
2. "all the facts supported by sources don't warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia [..."]
3. "[... Those two bands didn't release any significant record influenced by the Smiths. So it is no worth mentioning it in this article"]
4. "Trimmed. wp:undue"
5. "Trimmed this promotion for a tribute act which is out of place.see undue"

I do not understand Valboo's point here. I do not know how familiar they are with Glasto, the Smiths, or the UK music scene (and the widely shared contemporary viewpoint that makes it so unrealistic to expect to see the original singer perform these again). This is not a 'tribute band'. The fact it wasn't released means nothing (Glasto coverage is bigger than pressing a CD). 'Facts supported by sources' is what we work from here. At least one of those sources did go into the fact that the original singer wouldn't be able to perform these like this, not just that there was a cover version performed (at the biggest annual music event in the UK, if not Europe).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Blanked here, implying that they're aware of it, as "Sent by an user who is oppised to any compromise"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: @Popcornfud: has opened this here: Talk:The Smiths#Legacy: tribute act : Blossoms + Astley covers

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Also this seems to be long-running: "17:38, 11 January 2024 diff hist −3,008 The Smiths wp:undue and wp:trivial" Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Lifetime8090 reported by User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (Result: Blocked )

Page: Jordannah Elizabeth Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lifetime8090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User responded to a warning by Discospinster to not add unsourced information by saying: "Is a woman being married is controversial? Interesting. I will add it until you stop bothering her page."

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Commments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from the article Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Dvd 2001 reported by User:Cyberlink420 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: List of Dreamcast games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of PlayStation (console) games (A–L) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Game Boy Advance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
PlayStation (console) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dvd 2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(There's more, but these are just examples.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Also multiple personal attacks; here's two examples. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Sitewide as the disruption is on multiple articles Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Simsarmy (Result: Declined)

Page: Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundayclose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Speedy close as misfiled, thus no action needed. I cannot see edit warring here (disagreement with you is not edit-warring) and the three 'diffs' [sic] posted here don't support any claim of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, my edits were removed without cause and despite good faith, and even when I revised my position and put more effort into my edits they were summarily reverted.

I made pains to find consensus in the talk page, which was ignored. Simsarmy (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simsarmy, being bold by making an edit, having that edit reverted, perhaps trying with modifications again and having these also reverted for now is a relatively normal process that usually puts you in a position where you're required to find a consensus on the talk page before continuing to edit. If I see correctly, you threatened escalation in your second message in the talk page discussion, calling Sundayclose "[t]he resident gatekeeper". You even admit that you were "expecting resistance".

Instead of focusing on content on the article's talk page, you made it a discussion about article ownership and ... I don't know, wounded pride? What do you expect administrators to do, block the other user who dared to object and to disrespect the effort that went into your well-made edits?

You currently have the last message in the discussion, so you can edit it to remove anything irrelevant to the content itself, such as "You don't seem to have read anything I've said" or "You're clearly more interested in arguing than finding consensus and so I've escalated", or "reflexively undo". Doing so would greatly increase the probability of actually finding a consensus. Creating this report here only does to the extent that my message makes you modify yours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into my report ToBeFree. I won't contest your decision, but I do just want it said that I feel like I'm allowed to be ornery and simultaneously make quality additions to Wikipedia. I felt that they went out the gate swinging, even though I did what I felt was the smallest, most inoffensive change I could imagine. So your position, and their reluctance to work with me puts me in the position that I essentially can't contribute.

I'll try to find that consensus regardless, and I'll do so with a legitimate desire to reach an understanding. Thanks for reading! Simsarmy (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Ronherry reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

Page: The Life of a Showgirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ronherry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "moved to avoid section-bleeding"
2. 20:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Songs */ restored image. I disagree; this short article can easily accommodate three images. Three is perfect for now."
3. 20:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Songs */"
4. 19:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306071487 by NegativeMP1 (talk) The discussed content is topical enough and widely covered enough to have its separate section; this section does not exist normally for normal musicians. For bigger/more commercially successful artists who focus on visuals, it does and can exist. This has nothing to do with Production."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Images */"

Comments:

This user just returned from a 72-hour block imposed by Ritchie333 (as exemplified here) from the page in question and has immediately resumed the same editing behaviours that led to their previous block. User was also previously reported at this noticeboard three days ago. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Those diffs prove nothing. I did not revert any of your edits. You kept reverting my contributions to the article. Out of the 4 Diffs you cited, only two are reverts. ℛonherry☘ 21:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Per the policy, it states: [t]he three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Per that, they do not need to be the same material; and considering you just returned from a 72-hour block for the same behaviour, and four reverts were performed in just over one-hour. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted two times in that article today. But you reverted, reverted me specifically, thrice: First, Second, and Third. Also, instead of addressing me directly, you posted this passive aggressive comment in this edit summary here. ℛonherry☘ 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

1. 20:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC) - This does not constitute a revert. I merely moved an image from one place to another.
2. 20:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC) - This is a revert.
3. 20:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC) - Seriously? The break served no purpose under that paragraph anymore, as the image was removed from that section. Why do you need a redundant break?
4. 19:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC) - Yes, I made a bold revert here because I felt I was justified. I provided an explanation to NegativeMP1 about it, and they disagreed with the topic but agreed to change the sections's order, which I agreed with. This was a compromise and there is no dispute here.

And the diff on "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", I was not even pinged there. How am I supposed to participate? And LiveLikeMusic did not begin that discussion, M.Billoo2000 did, because they disagreed with LiveLikeMusic's revert of my edit. Pinging @M.Billoo2000:, here. LivelikeMusic made their response there at 20:52 and after a mere 8 minutes, opened this AN discussion at 21:00, claiming they "attempted to resolve dispute".

I request admins to go through the article history and notice how LiveLikeMusic immediately edited on every bit of prose I added to that article. I was expanding the article, and they were hovering over me. I honestly feel like they did all that to stage a dispute. ℛonherry☘ 21:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• What I can say is that this is just a very new and speedily developing article. People can have short-term disagreements, and that is why I opt for the talk page a number of times. No comment on the dispute. M. Billoo 21:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Making accusatory statements in an attempt to deflect the behaviour(s) is surely not the way to go (as two wrongs don't make a right). And apologies if the diffs above were off; not used to using the automated templates. I will use more effective examples below (again, all made upon user's return from a 72-hour page block):

• Revert one (15:41, 15 August 2025)
• Revert two (16:37, 15 August 2025)
• Revert three (16:49, 15 August 2025)

That, alone, ia three edits made within a slightly more than one-hour timeframe (within the 24-hour policy). And surely, if an edit of one was undone, then it is up to them to take it to the talk page, not the one who provided the original removal (per WP:BRD), as the burden of proof is on the one who wants to make the edit, not the one who removes it (per Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution). None of this was done to stage a dispute, as I never disassumed bad faith on the editor's part. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Your "Revert two" is not a revert at all. Even if it were a revert like you claim, you listed three reverts. I did not break the 3RR rule as, according to you, I did not perform more than three edits. And, to clarify, I performed two reverts, not three like you claim. The diffs I've shared below show your hounding attitude towards me. ℛonherry☘ 22:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Proof of LiveLikeMusic's hounding behavior and repeatedly confrontational/inhibitory attitude towards my edits:

1. I edit here, and LivelikeMusic immediately edits there as well.
2. I make a totally different edit here, and they pop up here as well, and makes a passive aggressive remark. I did not protest.
3. I add another bit of prose here, and within seconds LivelikeMusic edits it. I did not protest, again.
4. I move on from the prose and try to expand the lead, and they show up there too. I did not protest, yet again.
5. For a pop album article that has no images, I added a few, and they cross-edit me there as well.
6. I added an image of Elizabeth Taylor, and they immediately changed it to a different image of Taylor, and re-aligned it to their liking. I protest neither the image change nor the alignment change. I let it be.
7. I edited Promotion, and instantly they did too.
8. I added an image of Carpenter, and they quickly removed it. And this here, is the only instance where I did protest and revert their edit.

Eight different places where they edited after me within a minute. I reverted only during the eighth instance. Please draw your own conclusions from this. This looks like intentional confrontional/dismissive behavior to me. ℛonherry☘ 22:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I apologise if you felt it was hounding; it was not, as I did not even look at the page's history until repeated edits were continuing to be made (such as the MOS:DATEFORMAT violation, which has been previously corrected). As such, this edit summary had to do with the ongoing violation of several Manual of Style policies (and not those doing them; i.e., the continued violation within the track listing, the ongoing over-linking, et al.). Again, given that this article is brand-new and more information is being added in, cross-editing is bound to happen (as evident by the page's history itself; especially if a current event, which I would classify this article as, given the high-profile celebrity that is Taylor Swift). As far as I am aware, cross-editing ≠ hounding, or reverting. To assume I was specifically targeting you is unfounded (again, apologies if you feel otherwise, but it was not). And, furthermore, if you felt I were, you easily could have come to my talk page and approached me about it, and yet no approach was ever made. Also, wish to note — several of those edits did not happen within a minute as proposed. As of now, I am removing myself from the page in question, to avoid any potential further disputes, hopefully. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Tito Omburo reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

Page: The Birth of a Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tito Omburo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Whilst Tito Omburo has not technically broken 3RR, he has resumed his disruptive pattern of edit-warring just a month after his last block. This time he is attempting to add an extremely non-neutral description to the lead of the article (i.e. describing the film as a "white supremacist propaganda film"). This is synthesized from various sources, but none of them actually characterize the film in this exact way, and therefore does not comply with MOS:FILMLEAD. His behavior is de-stablising a GA-rated article. The edit is very poor in general in other ways, because he has copied a big chunk of the third paragraph into the first paragraph, so now it is duplicating text. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the right place for content disputes is on the talk page of the article. However, as I have repeatedly noted, these are WP:NPOV edits. For example, throughout the lede the full title The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan was truncated to The Clansman. I have also raised notice at the WP:NPOV/N, after reading the exasperation of another editor on the astonishing statement by Betty Logan that "The racism is just a small part of its legacy—and not the most important aspect". The fact that this is the most racist film in history was deferred to the third paragraph. I have extended multiple good faith offers on the discussion page for productive discussion, including suggesting that Betty Logan present a neutral discusion of the dispute to the "film project", of which I am not a member. Perhaps the film project feels that it is neutral to downplay the racism of a notoriously racist film (as evinced by every scholarly source on the topic.) I have repeatedly requested Logan to provide contrary sources on the discussion page. To be clear, there has been no dispute that this is a racist film, that it is a racist propaganda film. The thread on the discussion page clearly puts Logan as one against three. The only sources they (Logan) cite are IMDB flap. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment This is getting ridiculous! What is the purpose of this board? The guy just keeps editing it and editing it, and it is making it impossible to discuss on the talk page because no sooner does somebody comment and then Tito goes and changes it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Autisticattitudes reported by User:CFCF (Result: Indef from article)

Page: Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Autisticattitudes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "The debate is over. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:WEIGHT Wikipedia:GEVAL "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.","

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Autism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediate return to disruptive editing and reverting after 24-hour block. Please see comments by administrator Slp1 on talk-page. CFCF (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this a revert to a previous version (at least in part)? It's not clear to me that it is, so please clarify that. --Yamla (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from the article. Given the previous block did not lead entirely to an understanding, but just expired, I'm not convinced they can edit the article until they explain and understand what was disruptive. In particular, saying "I understand what was disruptive and accept the block", then charging in full pelt to the article making large scale changes is just going to lead to more problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out by Wikipedia Administrator User:Yamla: "Is this a revert to a previous version (at least in part)? It's not clear to me that it is, so please clarify that.(09:57, 15 August 2025)" This suggests that my edit was not a clear policy violation. Autisticattitudes (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Autisticattitudes reported by User:CFCF (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Hans Asperger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Autisticattitudes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC) to 04:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306057237 by Slothwizard (talk) @User:Traumnovelle I requested your participation at Talk:Hans Asperger on December 23, 2024, at 05:33. However, you never joined the discussion for over 5,662 hours. Yet, you are now opposing my edits to the Hans Asperger article (at 08:02, 13 August 2025)."
   2. 04:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "I will be reverting your edit, User:Traumnovelle. I will also make an inquiry at the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard"."
2. 06:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "@User:Traumnovelle I requested your participation at Talk:Hans Asperger on December 23, 2024, at 05:33. However, you never joined the discussion for over 5594 hours. Yet, you are now opposing my edits to the Hans Asperger article (at 08:02, 13 August 2025)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was blocked from editing the Autism-page for edit-warring and engaging in disruptive editing. While submitting and being denied multiple unblock requests, edit-warring continued on a different page. The disruptive nature of edits on Talk:Autism and Talk:Hans Asperger was only raised to a limited extent during the block discussion. The editor has made hundreds of pings to many different users in the past few days demanding re-engagement in discussion when others have been away for mere hours on Talk:Autism - despite being told multiple times not to, and that their conduct in demanding immediate responses was unreasonable and was not grounds for reverting edits or to reject their comments.

This is on top of accusations of others lying, dismissing positions or comments by multiple other editors, and continuing to demand engagement for clarification on points that others repeatedly stated they did not make. After being told this and engaging in further edit-warring, two posts were made at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_issue_on_Autism_(Mental_disorder) that reiterate comments and arguments that were refuted or discussed on the respective talk-pages by multiple editors. There have been many initiatives to resolution, by multiple editors.

This makes this case into a broader case than only edit-warring, but the maintained edit-warring with multiple different users while requesting an unblock from one article seemed to be the most egregious issue. CFCF (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• A partial block evidently helps neither Autisticattitudes nor the community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Sirfurboy User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL (and others) reported by User:Lkcl (Result: Reporter already blocked)

Page: General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sirfurboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) REAL_MOUSE_IRL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units&oldid=1306195359

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as I have complex undiagnosed from-birth brain damage (Periventricular white matter Ischemia aggravated by Domestic Violence, strokes and Athersclerosis) I cannot risk any kind of stress, and there has been sufficient bullying and intimidation to make it usage to engage with the individuals responsible.

1. additional sabotage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units_%28hardware%29&diff=1306192107&oldid=1306184936
2. additional sabotage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units_%28software%29&diff=1305805800&oldid=1305804619

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:General-purpose_computing_on_graphics_processing_units_(software)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: sorry, but the health issues (physical health issues ONLY) take priority. some kind help from any person monitoring this page would be greatly appreciated

Comments:
I have a huge amount of domain expertise in computing, and specialised for the past seven years in Vector processing, developing a novel innovative ISA concept with EU funding of EUR 1.2 million. I recently began returning to computing after a break induced by Domestic Violence, and have been diligently working with other experienced computer experts and wikipedians on improving the quality of Wikipedia computing in some very unusual and historic as well as modern architectures. on discovering that there has been an unintentional conflation (five separate uses detected so far) of the term "GPGPU" I stepped in with a disambiguation page and began collating and systematically correcting misunderstandings, only to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the task (hundreds of uses over *fifteen* aliases for GPGPU - four of them disambiguated to GPGPU hardware and the rest fully-categorised and exicitly noted as such. unnnfortunately, I used a non-standard protocol (no risk of damage) that I was "warned" about (and the problematic initiator of the speedy-delete despite a talk page notice of intention to perform the disambiguation was not), and the editor assumed bad faith (TiggerJay) and set off a catastrophic chain of unsafe misunderstandings, causing other technically-non-informed editors to join in the wiki-bullying. I cannot possibly face these people alone, as they are demonstrating hypocrisy by citing WP:xyz at me which their very message clearly violates. it is interfering with my work, which is not paid-for: I did not come here to be abused. their lack of knowledge and quite obvious desire for "vengeance" is resulting in sabotage of a long-standing accidental misuse of a common phrase, GPGPU, which my comprehensive research has shown up five separate and distinct uses, so far. greatly appreciated some experienced people who know how to defuse situations and have the "authority" and gentle experience to do so in a firm but respectful way. with thanks. Lkcl (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

---

commentary / opinion on the proposed strategy of the people engaging in sabotage (NOTE statement on hw talk page where I explain that this is just how things are, as GPGPU hardware is such a rare topic - this does not excuse the intransigent behaviour however)

• the proposal is to merge the (fledgeling) hw page with the software one
• however both pages were written as entirely separate topics - one uses the other
• with both pages merged the DAB page becomes pointless
• with the DAB page being pointless, five separate topics remain hopelessly conflated and confused, as they have been for over a decade (almost two)
• the complexity of merging the two disparate pages will result in even more confusion than is already present in a software page that contains original research

---

• User:Lkcl#Miscellaneous
• User:Lkcl#Categories - categories affected by misinformation include parallel computing, graphics, Nvidia, it's a big list of high-profile pages (totalling thousands of pages affected)
• Talk:General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (hardware)
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lkcl&oldid=1306202032
• Category:GPGPU pre-existing category created in 2018 discovered today that mirrors the (newly-created) disambiguation page for GPGPU, on which another new use of the term "GPGPU" was discovered ("GPU cluster is a cluster of GPGPU hardware"). the people currently engaging in active sabotage are reverting edits intended to get clarity on a particularly hard-to-understand technical topic, and have demonstrated such an unsafe attitude I cannot engage with them.

Who are the other users that you are referring to in the section title? Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

hi tenshii, there are a *lot* unfortunately. let me check one of the links - User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL - hyesterday they were one of the people making threats... using threatening language that upset me - and then (kindly) found a page which has a long-standing error on it *but* he made the very conflationary-mistake that the DAB page is intended to correct! since their attention is now on the page they are basically, from lack of knowledge, uncooperatively engaging in domain-specific sabotage. see hw talk page (link above and I will add below). Lkcl (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have disagreed with you and provided reasons why, I have made no threats, used no threatening language and have not "sabotaged" anything. Your condition does not give you free rein to assume bad faith and ignore policies (e.g. you are required to notify editors you report to this noticeboard). REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Tenshii, as one of the users has found this page and made threatening false assertions based on .is communication, immediately demonstrating their unwillingness to engage safely, I will no longer participate in this process. I leave it to you and to other experienced Wikipedia administrators Lkcl (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not an administrator, to clarify. I disagree with your method of reporting however, you cannot report someone and then abandon the process altogether. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

With thanks to Tenshi! who alerted me to this discussion. The filing editor did not alert me. It is clearly not an issue for this board (the report is malformed). Suggest it is closed in favour of the ANI report. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reviewing admin: please note that I have raised a concern which includes this report at ANI. Please read before acting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm currently looking at a wall of text above, the reporter's username marked as indefinitely blocked, and a note that this is also at ANI. I'm close to declining the report without even having a look at the ANI discussion, but I'll do as requested... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, as expected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reporter Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:MarvelDisney20 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Avengers: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MarvelDisney20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306127568 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
2. 02:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306127059 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
3. 02:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306126740 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
4. 02:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306124481 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Avengers: Doomsday."
2. 02:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* August 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Conflicting reports about Ryan Reynolds */ Reply"
2. 02:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Conflicting reports about Ryan Reynolds */ Reply"
3. 02:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Conflicting reports about Ryan Reynolds */ Reply"
4. 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Conflicting reports about Ryan Reynolds */ Reply"
5. 02:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Conflicting reports about Ryan Reynolds */ Reply"

Comments:

A recent editorial dispute over the application of two reliable sources. The user has ignored and openly defied WP:3RR when warned. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah quite frankly discussion between myself and The Blaze has gotten heated (and on my end rather profane honestly) on the talk of the article. Of so far two editors to take my side, User:MarioProtIV has kept it calm and discussed with the proper channels why he favors the perspective he does; User:MarvelDisney20, the one reported, has to my knowledge been warned properly for the above, and should know better to go help establish consensus for what they favor instead of doing, well shit, all of the above. We have standards for content disputes and well folks, MarvelDisney20 has decided to not do it the right way. I advise a strict block for MarvelDisney20, because they ended up deciding to, when they did end up using the talk page, end things on a confrontational note and they have shown they are indifferent to the problematicness of their transgressions.

I don't know what else to say from here because besides myself, MarioProtIV and Trailblazer101, our usual contributors in the MCU WikiProject have not chimed in the discussion probably due to time differences. BarntToust 03:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

And it seems if the scope of the content dispute remains limited to MarioProtIV, Trailblazer101 and myself, the very first of us has drawn up a solution to the dispute, that through discussion, we three who have BRDd properly all agree upon. Wow, it has been so easy for those of us who have chosen to do it the right way, but boy oh boy here we are. BarntToust 03:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a solution. I am satisfied with the consensus at the article talk page. Sometimes it just takes good minds a little bit to reach a compromise, but in the end, I always believe there is one to achieve. The edit warring may have diluted the consensus from being reached sooner. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah jeez tell me about the flood of notifications I received detailing either MD20's revert-spamming or their mouthy quarreling they did unto you between their talk page and that of Avengers: Doomsday. In active discussions such as the one Trail, Mario (and with input by User:AldWiki1 that further cleared up the directive for what to do about the dispute), it's already a given that quite a few notifications can come in for and by those who are doing good BRD. I too doubt that whatever MD20 was doing helped in any way to get an end to the debate. BarntToust 04:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed by reading "edit warring is never a solution" here and then seeing the same person edit war with edit summaries telling others not to edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  wow I did not expect Trail to get blocked here. BarntToust 16:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  well to be fair Trail did revert 5 times—JayEdits and Mario once each (on the matter of Deadpool-Reynolds no less), besides the three reverts Trail did to MarvelDisney20.

  🦶🔫🤷‍♂️ BarntToust 17:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Denaar reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)

Page: Terminology of homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Denaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC) to 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Removed "For broader coverage of this topic, see Same sex."... this is a disambiguation page. Last update seems to run into an edit conflict and accidently reverted updates; merged the two together."
   2. 19:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Same-sex attracted */ Removing this section... it isn't about the terminology Same Sex Attracted."
   3. 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Same-sex attracted */ This section also isn't about "The terminology of homosexuality" - it might be appropriate for another page."
2. 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Included suggested edits; see discussion on talk page."
3. 12:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Same-sex attracted */ - This section is a POV fork, surely "Same Sex Marriage" was a commonly used, neutral term, so is "same sex attraction"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Same Sex Attracted */ Reply"

Comments:

• Whether formally a three-revert rule violation or not, the dispute has reached a state where Denaar can't continue editing without finding a consensus for their changes on the article's talk page first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: - The user continues their EW now chasing my edits across other pages - and reverting links to DAB pages diff and bludgeoning the talk page creating multiple threads - Talk:Terminology of homosexuality#Same Sex Attracted & Talk:Terminology of homosexuality#What Greg Johnson really says about Same Sex Attracted to push out any editors.

The page protection expires tomorrow and they will likely resume their edits after having worn down everyone. Raladic (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Volodia.woldemar reported by User:92.41.32.225 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Necktie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volodia.woldemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necktie&diff=prev&oldid=1305578227
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necktie&diff=prev&oldid=1305671898
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necktie&diff=prev&oldid=1306224900
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necktie&diff=prev&oldid=1306280518

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Necktie&action=edit&section=6

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANecktie&diff=1306284381&oldid=1305671546

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Volodia.woldemar claimed WP:OR on a sentence that summarized points later on - NOT original research. Stated that if Volodia.woldemar had no other argument but erroneous claim then to go to dispute resolution or concede - no response either way after 3 days and when sentence restored started deleting again, without justification. Stated again to go to WP:DR, but nothing.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volodia.woldemar&action=edit&section=3

Comments:

I have been making a number of edits to reshape the necktie article, but Volodia.woldemar is being dogmatic on this one sentence without any justification. I directed to WP:REVERT for guidance to consider a proper way forward.

This minor final sentence of the intro, has remained a sticking point. The discussion on the Talk page ground to an impasse - OR claimed without any grounds.

A third party, Belbury, commented stated with that the disputed sentence was fine and a fair summary bar 2 minor caveats which were addressed. (Detailed in the talk page)

I restored the disputed sentence with Belbury's comments addressed and the deletion was repeated

It is these sort of petty dogmatically argumentative hackers that give Wikipedia a bad name that discourage and turn away for good good editors trying to make articles that work well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.32.225 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Volodia.woldemar, on the article's talk page, please focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:246:5B7C:4480:F029:14F:3ABB:2AB3 reported by User:HaileyYeliah (Result: Page protected)

Page: Sudip Mazumder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:246:5B7C:4480:F029:14F:3ABB:2AB3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

this person needs to chill they are repeatedly adding the same removed content back in HaileyYeliah (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@HaileyYeliah, you need to provide diffs of the reverts, of the edit warring, and of attempts to resolve dispute. If you need help on providing them, Help:Diff has instructions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, this has already been reported; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:2601:246:5B7C:4480:F029:14F:3ABB:2AB3_and_other_IPs_reported_by_User:Jay8g_(Result:_). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 09:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User:TucanHolmes reported by User:QEnigma (Result: Page protected)

Page: Iranian brickwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: TucanHolmes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306435082 by QEnigma (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Iranian brickwork."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Disambiguation required */ Reply"
2. 19:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Iranian brickwork "/* Disambiguation required */ Reply"

Comments:

Iranian brickwork cannot be considered as a disambiguation page and it does not meet the WP:DAB criteria. The above user insists it does and fail to accept the platform guidelines making constant reverts which violate the WP:3RR. QEnigma 论 19:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have performed exactly three reverts; also, you did not engage with me on the article's talk page, and simply cited the same set of rules to me, without engaging with the substance of my objections. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Iranian brickwork for my objections to QEnigma's approach. This was the state of the talk page before I performed the third revert (with a clearly stated reason and a request to continue the discussion on the talk page). TucanHolmes (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, the criteria for speedy deletion were not fulfilled; a normal deletion process would have been more appropriate. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected Please take the matter to a regular deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User:92.40.217.172 reported by User:Drt1245 (Result: Declined)

Page: Floating-gate MOSFET (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.40.217.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also other IPs: 92.40.216.119, 86.187.168.156, 92.40.216.35

Comments:
In another undo, an editor mentioned that the IP user is a sock of Maestro2016, who was banned for being a sock of Jagged_85, as seen here. I have no other involvement or knowledge of this matter.

• Declined. Sockpuppetry concerns should be brought to WP:SPI, but four reverts by four different IP addresses over the course of several months isn't an ANEW matter. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:246:5B7C:4480:F029:14F:3ABB:2AB3 and other IPs reported by User:Jay8g (Result: Page protected)

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.

---

Page: Sudip Mazumder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:246:5B7C:4480:F029:14F:3ABB:2AB3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No user involved has made any attempt at discussion.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Technically, User:Augmented Seventh has also broken 3RR on this article. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for opening this^ I stumbled onto this notable engineers article, and was struck by the capitalization, bolding, use of nominals, and generally Linkin-stylized CV content. I looked at other academic articles for additional guidance and edited for mos. I may have made mistakes. i used deGrasse Tysons page for a guide. I noticed, in the subsequent interactions with a dozen shifting ip addresses, that i was interacting with someone both knowledgeable as regards minutia of the professor and passionate about creating an article where the nominal 'professor is bolded throughout the article. Rather than leave it be, i used the shifting ip addresses as pretext to keep a stable version in place, repeatedly. I am glad to step away from the content. It has been instructional, in unexpected ways. guidance is appreciated, Augmented Seventh🎱 04:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, we're now up to 15 reverts (, ). Pinging @PhilKnight and @MakaylaHippo1998. Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Noted. Augmented Seventh🎱 08:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 17 August 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.

User:89.172.163.78 reported by User:Czello (Result: Already blocked for disruption)

Page: Croats of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.172.163.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306570062 by Theonewithreason (talk)"
2. 13:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "rv sockpuppet"
3. 13:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 12:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "One more time I'll report you to the admins for covering up a crime."
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC) to 12:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "In the article Croats of Serbia, Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia s are clearly marked and linked in the articlebut it is also on see also. I don't see that you moved anything there, you're deliberately moving only to where the Serbian crimes are.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Croatia#See_also"
   2. 12:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306562475 by 89.172.163.78 (talk)"
   3. 12:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "Correct what I meant to say. In the article Serbs of Croatia, Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia s are clearly marked and linked in the article but it is also on see also. I don't see that you moved anything there, you're deliberately moving only to where the Serbian crimes are. I see you wanted to change. Croatia–Serbia relations also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Croatia#See_also"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Croats of Serbia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Already blocked  for a period of 24 hours by ScottishFinnishRadish for 31 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

User:82.15.157.167 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: No violation)

Page: Leni Riefenstahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.15.157.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Africa, photography, books and final film */Previous edit to remove a prejudiced citation was reverted without reason given. Given Wikipedia’s commitment to anti-racism the citation of Sontag cannot remain on this article without context, unless we are going to add the opinions from David Duke to black documentaries too."
2. 17:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Africa, photography, books and final film */Hardly a dubious rational, you can literally read her Wikipedia page and the quotes are there.

Again, should David Duke be cited on documentaries about black people without any context on his beliefs?"

1. 17:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Africa, photography, books and final film */Previous edit to remove a prejudiced citation was reverted without reason given.

Given Wikipedia’s commitment to anti-racism the citation of Sontag cannot remain on this article without context, unless we are going to add the opinions from David Duke to black documentaries too."

1. 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Africa, photography, books and final film */Sontag was an extreme racist who was highly controversial in her lifetime (and since) for anti-white rhetoric, referring to whites as a “cancer” amidst other bigoted remarks.

I don’t think she can be considered a respectable or impartial critic worthy of being cited here; it would be like quoting a review by David Duke for a documentary about Jesse Jackson.

At the very least context of Sontag’s beliefs and her vocal hatred for “white civilizati..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leni Riefenstahl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Contested edit */ Reply"

Comments:

Constant Edit Warring on Leni Riefenstahl Untamed1910 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Once again, the original edit reverted to ≠ a fourth revert. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

User: Valboo reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: The Smiths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:10, 12 August 2025

Repeated blanking of a sourced paragraph.

This is a repost of the report of 15 August 5RR that was ignored and archived:

Since the closure of that ANEW, they've twice more just today reverted to their favoured version, a version that no-one else supports - as discussed at Talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smiths&diff=prev&oldid=1306476044

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smiths&diff=prev&oldid=1306636350

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This has been stable for some time, added nearly a year ago: "Popcornfud (talk | contribs) added this on 30 August 2024 02:26.". There are reasonable explanations of the opposing viewpoints at the article talk: page link below.

There is a coherent and sourced paragraph covering an incident in 2023 when a performance at Glastonbury (that's quite big, in music terms) covered songs by The Smiths, without involving the Smiths' lead singer. Who has a somewhat tarnished popularity these days, despite which the songs and band are still popular. Glasto also has a long tradition of nostalgia. This was in no way a 'tribute act'. The band concerned (and some singer called 'Rick Astley', whoever he might be) have a perfectly good career of their own. This was a pretty much one-off incident, to put Smiths music live at Glasto again, because it wouldn't happen otherwise. It was well received and well-reviewed (cited).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "tribute band, they didn't release any music influenced by the group"
2. "all the facts supported by sources don't warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia [..."]
3. "[... Those two bands didn't release any significant record influenced by the Smiths. So it is no worth mentioning it in this article"]
4. "Trimmed. wp:undue"
5. "Trimmed this promotion for a tribute act which is out of place.see undue"

I do not understand Valboo's point here. I do not know how familiar they are with Glasto, the Smiths, or the UK music scene (and the widely shared contemporary viewpoint that makes it so unrealistic to expect to see the original singer perform these again). This is not a 'tribute band'. The fact it wasn't released means nothing (Glasto coverage is bigger than pressing a CD). 'Facts supported by sources' is what we work from here. At least one of those sources did go into the fact that the original singer wouldn't be able to perform these like this, not just that there was a cover version performed (at the biggest annual music event in the UK, if not Europe).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Blanked here, implying that they're aware of it, as "Sent by an user who is oppised to any compromise"

Blanked again, implying awareness

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: @Popcornfud: has opened this here: Talk:The Smiths#Legacy: tribute act : Blossoms + Astley covers

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Also this seems to be long-running: "17:38, 11 January 2024 diff hist −3,008 The Smiths wp:undue and wp:trivial" Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

User:TransilvanPolyglot reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result:No violation)

Page: Doreen St. Félix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: TransilvanPolyglot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC) "added different source"
2. 20:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC) "BLP is just a tool to censor in this case. even yahoo picked up the news. her posts are self incriminating. this seems to be a coordinated effort to whitewash her racist history"
3. 19:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC) "doesnt matter. the screenshots are incriminated in on themselves"
4. 19:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1306250669

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Doreen_St._Félix#WP:BLP_vios

Comments:

I'm additionally troubled by this comment on their talk page, which gets a lot closer to WP:ASPERSIONS or even WP:PA than I'm comfortable with. I imagine I'll also be accused of having an agenda past WP:BLP and WP:3RR for daring to have pronouns and filing this report. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

it's not about pronouns, it's not even about political leanings, it's about certain users openly displaying political agendas and lo and behold coordinating in whitewashing wiki individuals that promote said political leanings. what next? 4chan policing what and what isn't allowed on the trump page?TransilvanPolyglot (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Yet another instance where the reporter has confused the edit reverted to with a revert to that edit.

This does not, of course, mean that TP is in any way in the clear; I found their repeated refusal to even acknowledge the NYPOST issue repeatedly raised in edit summaries reverting them to be concerning. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that the editor didn't go past 3rr, but my understanding was that their behavior was nonetheless edit warring. Evidently I was mistaken, so my apologies both to you and @TransilvanPolyglot. I will refrain from any further reports on this board that aren't explicit 3rr violations. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello LaffyTaffer, what you write there is not generally wrong. Limiting your reports to 3RR violations can help to make only actionable reports, but is not a requirement. The user is now partially blocked but edit warring was just a secondary problem in my eyes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

User:185.195.71.214 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Kabul Expedition (1842) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.195.71.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Constant IP disruption of page, even when reverted by another user. They constantly call all attempts to revert pure vandalism in their edit summaries as well, clearly showing WP:NOTHERE. Noorullah (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Tenshi Uisu reported by User:2405:201:A400:2824:259F:7E06:82FC:5C67 (Result: Declined)

Page: Laughter Chefs – Unlimited Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tenshi Uisu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

• Declined. It appears you've both made the same number of reverts over the course of a couple of weeks. I don't see any attempt to discuss the content, the editor was not wanred before making this report, and the editor was not notified that this report was made. Use the talk oage and come to a consensus regarding the material, using dispute resolution as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify I'm not the same person who reverted their edit multiple times, I only reverted before making this report as I noticed they were removing sourced content when I visited the article's history. Moreover I wasn't aware that I had to warn them and notify them. 2405:201:A400:2824:259F:7E06:82FC:5C67 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2A0D:3344:182:1310:81A3:A04B:1285:5FAE reported by User:Danners430 (Result: )

Page: West Coast Main Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A0D:3344:182:1310:81A3:A04B:1285:5FAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "Fixing Errors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Voyagers */ new section"

Comments:

/64 IP has been edit warring the image change since yesterday. Warned on a different IP talk page - don’t necessarily think they need a full block, just direction to the talk page to discuss the edits. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sariel Xilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&action=history

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=0&title=User_talk%3ASariel_Xilo

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
User Sarial Xilo seems to have a history of edit warring this page. Information was removed and I was asked to start a new topic on the talk page. Sarial Xilo has not engaged in discussion but instead keeps reverting edits.

• 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 complete diffs. Aoidh (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Kalpesh Manna 2002 reported by User:SaintPaulOfTarsus (Result: )

Page: 3rd Army Corps (Ukraine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20 August: most recent version excluding disputed content

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10 August
2. 18 August
3. 20 August
4. 15 August (potentially)

User repeatedly reverts to restore preferred version which contains extensive use of a website deprecated by WP:RSN as well as nonsensical placement of irrelevant citations, despite repeated warnings against doing so through edit summaries and user talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#3rd Army Corps (Ukraine)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user talk page) User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#3rd Army Corps (Ukraine)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

User SaintPaulOfTarsus has reverted 9 edits made by multiple users on 18th August on the page of 3rd Army Corps (Ukraine). Removed over 6500 bytes of content and supporting refs without proper explanation. Has not followed the conventional format of organizing army formation for subordinate units in his edits. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So I take it you have no explanation for your repeated use of a source deprecated by WP:RSN and adding sources that have nothing to do with the sentences they are meant to support? I reverted you when you did this because it is in gross violation of policy. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources has already been removed and replaced by sources from other websites and articles. Also you have removed vital contents from military infobox of the article such as unit size, unit type, headquarters etc. without any explanation.

In the structure section you have repeatedly vandalized the content by removing subordinate units and not following the structures of other corps of the Ukrainian Army in their pages.

You have also been heavily reliant on the first hand sources such as interviews of the unit commander and other officials for your reference, which I've not removed though as they are constructive edits. But most of your activity on the page, sorry to say this has unfortunately been non constructive in nature. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Everything that I removed (subordinate units, headquarters, etc.) was removed because it was something you referenced from MilitaryLand.Net. It has already been explained to you that this website is entirely unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There were multiple official government and news sources such as these https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/latvia-supplied-patria-armored-personnel-carriers-will-strengthen-the-third-army-corps-units https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/14/7502925/ that you have removed without explanation. These are not militaryland.com sources as you are claiming to be. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• You added the second source, published in March 2025, in this edit and in this edit, after the sentence In an early August interview, lieutenant colonel Maksym Zhorin said that the 3rd Army Corps had managed to stop the offensive operations of Russia's 20th Combined Arms Army and 22nd Army Corps, claiming that on certain sections the front, the Russians had been pushed back 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) and 8 kilometres (5.0 mi).. The source you added has absolutely nothing to do with the interview with Zhorin or with the activities of the 3rd Army Corps in August. Why did you add that source there?
• In this edit you also added the same second source after the sentence In May, Ukrainian military journalist Yurii Butusov wrote that once all the bureaucratic processes relating to the formation of the corps were completed, it would be able to deploy its forces to stabilize the Kupiansk and Lyman front.. The source you added has absolutely zero to do with what Butusov wrote in May, or anything about Kupiansk/Lyman. Why would you add that source there?
• What sources do you have besides MilitaryLand.Net which support the 53rd and 63rd Brigades, the 21st Regiment, and the 25th, 122nd, 525th Battalions, et al., being subordinate units of the 3rd Corps? Besides MilitaryLand.Net you have added no sources supporting this.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Units such as 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment, 4th Medical Battalion, Repair and Restoration Batallion, Support Battalion, Technical Intelligence Unit, 21st Regiment of Unmanned Systems, 311th Electronic Warfare Company, 525th Security and Maintenance Battalion, 25th Anti-Tank Battalion, 122nd Communications Battalion were all part of 3rd Assault Brigade even before the creation of the 3rd Army Corps. Therefore they are also automatically part of the the 3rd Army Corps now as it is based upon the 3rd Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian Army.

As for the 53, 60, 63 mechanized brigades their official participation in the 3rd Army Corps has been published in their own official websites or facebook pages such as https://60brigade.mil.gov.ua/ for the 60th brigade. Please look up to those offical sources. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You are going to have to look for those sources and add them yourself instead of asking me to look for them, if you want them included in a Wikipedia article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

They are already included in the article. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There is nothing in the article which supports, for example, the 53rd and 63rd Brigades, except the deprecated MilitaryLand.Net. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Here are the official sites and news sources https://www.facebook.com/63ombr https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/zhorin-russia-steps-up-front-line-pressure-amid-talk-of-trump-putin-meeting-50536439.html https://censor.net/en/resonance/3567339/the-third-army-corps-has-achieved-significant-successes-on-the-front Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

After having this conversation with you today I now understand you are not really committed in improving and expanding this vast free place of knowledge called Wikipedia. Instead most of your past edits on Wikipedia has been reverting added content, removing content and other user talk page discussions such as this. You have made no positive contribution of either added content or sources neither finding them yourself.

I'm very disappointed and heartbroken seeing this type of attitude to belittle or disrupt others while contributing so little in overall Wikipedia contents in a Wikipedia editor. Very negetive outlook and motivation you have. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep the philosophizing to yourself and commit to using non-deprecated sources like the ones you just found to support your edits going forward instead of edit warring. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

User has been inactive for 9 hours, let's see what happens next. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Badakhshan ziba reported by User:SdHb (Result: Declined)

Page: Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Badakhshan ziba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:04, 26 June 2025. Quote: "Ethnic groups: Replacing false information from unreliable sources. Extensive changes and sabotage of ethnic information have been made compared to 2022 and 2023."
2. 20:49, 10 August 2025. Quote: "Preventing data vandalism in favor of the Pashtuns. The user named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SdHb extensively altered the ethnic information of Afghanistan on June 9, 2023. restore the information to April 2023 based on reliable international sources"
3. 20:21, 11 August 2025. Without any comment.
4. 18:08, 13 August 2025. Again without any comment.
5. 20:17, 16 August 2025. Again, no comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:10, 14 August 2025. Quote: "We now come into edit war territory *sigh* ... (see in the discussion page for more information)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan#Vandalism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: For all information see the discussion in the talk page linked here. In short: Badakhshan ziba continually reverts sourced edits without providing policy-based arguments. My edits were consistently based on well-established and reliable sources (CIA World Factbook, Library of Congress, Asia Foundation, Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc.). Instead of engaging with content and sources, his reasoning is based on personal claims (along the lines of "I am from Afghanistan, I know what's going on", alleged nationalism (like "this is part of Pashtunization policy by the Taliban"), or he claims I'm sabotaging things, which falls under WP:OR and WP:ASPERSIONS and has no valid editorial justification.

I already tried to clear the dispute by requesting WP:3O, but this did not help as nobody answered a call for a third opinion. Instead, it was pointed out that there is a need to follow WP:CONSENSUS and avoid accusations of vandalism. However, Badakhshan ziba continues to disregard this advice, reverting to his "true" version and dismissing sources such as the Asia Foundation by saying they “cannot” be used while relying himself on older or distorted sources that fit his view (keywords: intentionally misinterpreting language identity with ethnic identity). This is WP:IDHT behavior. Therefore I ask you, the administrators, to review this case as an edit warring and conduct issue. --SdHb (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Declined You were both edit warring. I would suggest letting the 3O request run its course and, if necessary, use other forms of dispute resolution to obtain a consensus regarding the disputed material. Aoidh (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

User:DaringViper reported by User:OceanLoop (Result: Already blocked)

Page: No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DaringViper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Memorabilia */"
2. 16:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* 2009 President's Colour Presentation */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC) to 16:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Commanding Officers */"
   2. 16:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards and Recognition */"
4. 16:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Commmanding Officers */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC) to 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"
   2. 15:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* 2009 President's Colour Award */"
6. 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links."
2. 15:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Angrysct0tsman12 suspected edit warring via IPs (Result: declined / page protected)

Page: Battle of Đồng Hới (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Angrysct0tsman12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Possible IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm suspecting that user:Angrysct0tsman12 is conducting edit warring via IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193 on page Battle of Đồng Hới. There's a correlation between the comments of the user and the IPs on the talk page. On the article page, the user and IPs continuously conduct mostly identical reverts. I kindly ask if any measures can be taken, either by me or any admin. 95.252.72.125 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mztouris

Can you please weigh in here? We are clearly separate individuals as evidenced by our disagreement on the talk page. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mztourist

tagged the wrong user. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the disconnect here is that I’m a relatively new editor and I’m not familiar with the lingo here which is causing some friction. So allow me to try to articulate where I’m coming from as best I can.

Issue: In the aforementioned article, I noticed a lot of back and forth on an article describing the attack on US warships by North Vietnamese aircraft during the Vietnam War. Particularly who “won” in the infobox since it was flipping between “North Vietnamese Victory” and “American Victory”.

My entry into the situation: Since I was curious, I looked into where this claim was being sourced and found it was taking an opinion and conflating it as fact (the specific passage in question was: “The twenty-minute attack was hailed as a great moral victory”). Now given that this book exclusively looks at personal accounts of North Vietnamese pilots, I don’t think it’s incorrect to assume that this statement reflects the OPINION of those involved and is not trying to pass this off as an immutable fact that can be measured. Thus my thoughts here were to edit the info box to be more reflective of a neutral position that is supported by the RS (i.e. battle damage). Since I have no reason to doubt that material damage occurred and there is visual evidence to corroborate this (pictures exist of the aftermath, not sure how to properly incorporate into the article). This is where we are at and I’ve made an effort to maintain the articles neutrality.

Where we stand now: Now the debate here seems to revolve around whether or not this statement should be taken at face value and passed off as an immutable fact vs. whether or not it should be included at all since the source is biased.

I have a potential solution that would satisfy all parties involved (remove this block entirely since it has been the focal point of contention for the past 16 years) and then contextualize the quote from the reliable, yet biased source in the body of the article itself. The challenge here is that I do not believe the IP user is engaging with what I am actually trying to convey. While I agree that we should not editorialize, I think it is reasonable to recognize differentiating an opinion from something more empirically measurable.

I believe this is in line with policy regarding proper attribution of biased sources as well as policy for representing what the author is actually saying.

My goal here is to strike a middle ground that captures the factual reality (material impact) while avoiding the current back and forth (Very relevant since that is the ONLY discussion that is being had on the topic at the moment). I don't think it is consistent with policy to pass of opinions as facts. However I think this is a valuable perspective and should still be included in proper context. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Declined Suspected sockpuppetry can be reported at WP:SPI, but checkusers won't connect IP addresses and accounts publicly and this is unlikely to be useful in the current situation. The page is semi-protected now, though, to prevent further disruption in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

A report by a 2 day old IP account should be given zero credibility. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

User:AnthonyThirtyacre2000 reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: P-Blocked one month)

Page: Jack Griffo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AnthonyThirtyacre2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "We get it we literally get it quit emphasizing it"

1. 22:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "We know that the Griffo was in the spin off we get it just quit emphasizing it"

1. 04:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "We get it He was in the spin off WE GET IT like we know he was in it we get it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring on Jack Griffo for the past several days and over the last few weeks , , and have hash wording in summaries. Given several warnings. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of one month Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:8803:3E01:1F30:5499:83B3:BD44:BF19 and User:2600:8803:3E01:1F30:B90D:2E4A:5A3:1E9B reported by User:ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Mickey 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 2600:8803:3E01:1F30:5499:83B3:BD44:BF19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:8803:3E01:1F30:B90D:2E4A:5A3:1E9B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2604:9D80:A200:70E5:E8EE:5267:2594:A2FB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Mickey_17&oldid=1307176954

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mickey_17&diff=prev&oldid=1307180558
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mickey_17&diff=prev&oldid=1307181220
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mickey_17&diff=prev&oldid=1307273408
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mickey_17&diff=prev&oldid=1307274345
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mickey_17&diff=prev&oldid=1307275913

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 and 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 and 2

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1 and 2

Comments:

• * Already blocked Rangeblocked by Jlwoodwa.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa and Ponyo: The IP editor appears to have jumped outside that blocked range to continue (see latest revert); I added this IP to the list above. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

New range blocked; article semi-protected.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Jon698 reported by User:Mewulwe (Result: Blocked 24 hours; reporter blocked 2 weeks)

4 reverts here insisting on not needing sources for fictitious iteration numbers for officeholders. Mewulwe (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Mewulwe has frequently been reverted for trying to remove the office numbering for politicians. This is a common thing that is present on almost every single politician's article. Please give me a second to find the many examples of these reverts. Jon698 (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Some recent examples found in a few minutes:

• Reverted by User:Richie1509 here
• Reverted by User:Richie1509 here)
• Reverted by User:Stormm001 here
• Reverted by User:Zubair Rehman Seyam here)
• Information he removed here was later restored

Jon698 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Mewulwe's issue with numbering goes back a decade according to his talk page. Jon698 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Mewulwe's recent edit summaries, as noted here, should be brought up as well. Jon698 (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

2600:4808:4892:7600:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Robert M. La Follette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:4808:4892:7600:A367:3D03:5E9D:DCAF/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307504949 by TonySt (talk) TonySt, I understand your point, but I think he's my favorite politician. Can you please be kind to me and keep me the positive language to honor him on Wikipedia. I won't edit war if you let my version be. Thank you."
2. 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307335779 by Lynch44 (talk)Please. The page should explain him positively and honestly, and he needs to be honored."
3. 2025-08-23T01:32:20Z
4. 2025-08-23T01:29:59Z
5. 2025-08-23T01:28:59Z
6. 2025-08-23T01:27:04Z

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 2025-08-23T01:31:59Z
2. 01:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robert M. La Follette."
3. 01:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "/* August 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been reverting to their preferred version for several days despite reversions and 3RR/vandalism warnings by four recent changes patrolling users (see the /64), plus myself. tony 01:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've requested temporary page protection due to persistent disruptive editing. 20m00 🗩 02:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi TonySt and 20m00, the IP address (/64) seems to be stable enough to try blocking without protecting the page for now. If this continues during the next 2 weeks, that would be freely revertable block evasion and I'd be happy about a notification on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems fair. Thank you. 20m00 🗩 02:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Bikram96 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Page protected)

Page: File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bikram96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
2. 10:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
3. 10:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 10:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 uploaded a new version of File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg"
   2. 10:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 uploaded a new version of File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg"
   3. 10:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please stop uploading a non-Indian poster to an Indian film, when we have a high quality local version available. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This poster was seen across Hyderabad. Hyderabad is in India. Bikram96 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the problem with current poster? It looks good. Bikram96 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, you reported about Coolie (2025 film). Now at here you are reporting about File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg. Bikram96 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that it is faked. Search this poster using Google Lens, and you will see the actual poster is something else, which was then edited before uploading to IMDb. Moreover, IMDb is not always reliable as users can upload fake/edited posters. The existing poster was taken from Chennai Times. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You can see this poster in Hyderabad. This is a portrait poster. Actually landscape posters are seen infront of almost all theatres in Hyderabad. The same way this poster is also seen across Malaysia. Bikram96 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Now that Bikram96 has agreed to spare the older version, I request admins that this discussion between closed and Bikram vindicated. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Timthemanofficial reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks, reporter partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Dutch phonology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timthemanofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=1307491440

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Kept removing sourced info and material, and used their own personal experience as a "source".

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, reporter partially blocked 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Tito Omburo reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Stale)

Page: The Birth of a Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tito Omburo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (August 15)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. (August 15)
2. (August 15)

• I solicited third party input from the Film project:
• Darkwarriorblake and Tompadompa joined the discussion on the talk page. The discussion eventually arrived at unanimous consensus i.e. Darkwarriorblake, Tompadompa, Tito Omburo and myself: . The agreed text (proposal #3) was installed in the article:
• Another editor called Ladtrack joined the discussion and made some sensible suggestions:

• After making headway it seemed like it was all winding down, and then it all kicked off again as Tito Omburo unilaterally re-wrote the lead: (August 19)

3. (this description was explicitly removed by proposal #3)

• Tito then started an RFC, to effectively challenge proposal #3 which he agreed to on the talk page:
• At this point, it would have been wise to leave the lead alone, but instead he added back the white supremacist text with the gross mischaracterisation that I had agreed to it: :

4. (this was directly after I had explained that I had REMOVED the text because proposal #3—which we had all agreed to—had removed it)
5.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See descriptions above which link to relevant parts of the discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

There was a disagreement, followed by a discussion, followed by a consensus that we all agreed on (including Tito Omburo). Once the new text was installed he unilaterally re-wrote the lead!! This is not how "consensus" works. He then starts an RFC to challenge the newly agree wording which is a massive waste of time and community resources because we had a discussion involving several editors and agreed to the wording. Parallel to this he is now edit-warring a description of the Ku Klux Klan into the article that was explicitly taken out by proposal #3, and is also not present in any of the RFC alternatives. He is an extremely uncollaborative editor and WP:NOTHERE IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're determined to have someone block me, and I note that this is cop behavior. Very unseemly. In any case this diff may invite some useful speculation as to your motives. My advice is that you walk away from this article. There are now other editors present with cooler heads who seem to assume good faith in others. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Tito Omburo, I am certain that you are not helping your case by making this kind of thinly-veiled accusations. Also not helping your case is that you were blocked a month ago for edit warring on a different article. I implore you to engage in some self-reflection here rather than carrying on. TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Tito Omburo is making an insinuation about my so-called motives regarding the above revert. Please note that it was ME who originally added this text. Tito is aware of this, but is attempting to paint my actions in a negative light. This text was removed after the discussion achieved unanimous consensus i.e. we all agreed—including Tito—to a version that did not include this text. The revert simply restored the version we had all agreed on. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Having been summoned by bot to the RfC mentioned above, it was immediately clear the RfC was fishy, which I explained at the RfC. I saw what looked like edit-warring on the article during August 2025 (), and I restored the article to a previous long-standing stable version. That edit has held for now.

Since then, I have researched and confirmed some of the behavior described above and at the RfC by Betty Logan and TompaDompa, particularly the creation of the highly questionable RfC by Tito Omburo that was designed to undermine a consensus agreed to by a number of editors--including Tito Omburo. Explained here at the RfC.

IMHO, given that Tito has not continued edit-war since then, I believe if Tito admit to the disruptive behavior and agrees not to continue it, and receives an appropriate warning from an admin, I don't believe a block, topic ban, or similar sanction is necessary at this point. But if there is no acknowledgement and the behavior continues, a sanction may be necessary to protect the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia seems to be populated entirely, especially in certain areas, by white people. I don't know what to say about this, but please be aware: in some areas, especially considering the lived experiences of those not like you, you are in an echo chamber. This is unhealthy for the encyclopedia, and leads to distortions of the neutral point of view policy. Of course, we think, sources written by white people, in English, are neutral, regardless of their provenance. Sources written by Blacks are a minority report (if they are mentioned at all), even if published in peer reviewed journals. If you feel attacked by this, please reconsider your approach to the neutral point of view: it's not about who has the greatest numbers on their side, but which sources are genuinely better, and I encourage you to read the sources in the article. If you do not feel attacked by this, the only specialist WikiProject I was able to notify (after some searching) relevant to this article is the largely moribund project , and I welcome a greater sounding. Even if you dislike people like me (schizophrenic - I would), at least I can see prejudice in plain sight. I fly off the handle periodically. But I'm often right when I do so. I will not back down or apologize: Betty Logan is in the wrong here. The status quo is objectively wrong. Please read the sources I have cited in the RfC, and then disagree with me in a constructive manner. (Discovered Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which makes precisely these points, even if it's probably on the chopping block these days.) Tito Omburo (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • You seem adamant that content-wise, you are in the right. Be that as it may, that's not what this report (or indeed, this noticeboard) is about—it's about conduct. I put it to you that you are, conduct-wise, very clearly in the wrong and that an apology is entirely in order. You have already said I will not back down or apologize, so I'll give you an opportunity to reconsider that position as it relates to your conduct. If you keep up this kind of behaviour, you are liable to end up with a long-term sanction (be it an WP:Indefinite block, a year-long WP:Topic ban, or something else) before too long. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with TompaDompa, whose response is almost identical to what I had planned to say. Although I do appreciate your response at the RfC, which I have had not had time to review carefully yet, these allegations lacking evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. Your response to me is a distraction from the problems with YOUR behavior of violating process.

I haven't reviewed your long-term behavior here, but I have seen other warnings for similar behavior in the past on your talk page, e.g. . Disputes over content are common in Wikipedia, and it is not unusual for editors to feel, just like you, that they are 100% correct and everyone who disagrees are wrong. If all involved feel they are right, how does the dispute get resolved? Wikipedia was created knowing that the impossibilities of articulating or seeking objective WP:TRUTH (WP:True)--a problem philosophers have struggled with even before the Ancient Greeks. As I am sure you know, Wikipedia relies on representing what is in reliable sources. But editors often disagree on how best to represent what they have read in the reliable sources, disagree which sources are the most reliable, which views deserve the most emphasis, etc. To resolve the disagreements, Wikipedia uses a process to seek WP:consensus--one that is no doubt imperfect and can create content that ultimately is not accurate and/or has WP:Systemic bias. We all know that the majority can be wrong, and those in the majority can be less informed than those in the minority. Regardless, this is the process for how disagreements on content are handled, and you violated that process.

If you want to keep editing here, you'll have to agree to follow the process, even if it means allowing content you strongly believe is "objectively wrong." If it is wrong, you'll have to convince other editors and form a consensus at the article. Edit-warring will get you sanctioned. Arguing about content at a behavior board like this doesn't help. Creating a flawed RfC doesn't help. And neither do the allegations. I spend this time explaining, because I think you are a valuable, intelligent editor, who has likely made important contributions, and like others, I don't want to lose you.

I also don't think the changes you prefer to the first paragraph of the article as "objectively wrong" any more than the versions the other editors proposed. Experts can spend a life-time reviewing the reliable sources on a subject and still disagree on what the latest most valuable research has agreed on as the current most accurate view(s) on the subject. So, I see his as a subjective disagreement that can only be resolved by following the process of finding consensus. If you can agree to do that, you can avoid sanctions. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Declined as stale. The edit war died down five days ago, and the RfC is still open. This report, as happens too frequently, soon turned into just an extension of the talk page. I suggest everyone devote their energies to the RfC and maybe getting someone to close it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Newinwiki8 reported by User:Woodroar (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Kocaeli Health and Technology University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newinwiki8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past month, Newinwiki8 has been edit warring to add/restore unsourced and poorly-sourced claims to the article on Kocaeli Health and Technology University, including claims regarding living persons. These edits have been reverted by multiple editors. The editor has escalated the edit warring today, including logging out and logging in (to avoid protection), and has passed 3RR.

Here are edits over the past month, leading up to today:

• 1: August 4th (includes 1 unrelated automated edit by another editor] as User:2A02:4E0:2D4D:427:DDA3:6134:7F46:3CD3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Edit was reverted by User:Cordless Larry
• 2: August 4th as User:2A02:4E0:2D4D:427:DDA3:6134:7F46:3CD3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Edit was reverted by User:Cordless Larry, who then protected the article until August 6th
• 3: August 5th as User:Newinwiki8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Note that Newinwiki8 logged in to bypass protection.
• Edit was reverted by User:Rambling Rambler
• 4: August 6th as User:Newinwiki8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cordless Larry, Rambling Rambler, and a bot made several changes over the next days. Protection expired.
• 5: August 10th as User:5.121.140.140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Edit was reverted by Cordless Larry

These are just today:

• 1RR: August 23rd as User:185.106.28.63 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1RR: August 23rd as User:130.193.249.203 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Edit was reverted by myself
• 2RR: August 23rd as 130.193.249.203
• 2RR: August 23rd as Newinwiki8. Note that Newinwiki8 logged in to revert me.
• I started a discussion at Talk:Kocaeli Health and Technology University#Recent unsourced and poorly-sourced changes, then reverted, and warned Newinwiki8 for edit warring.
• 3RR: August 23rd as 130.193.249.203
• Newinwiki8 then acknowledged the edit warring message
• Edit was reverted by ClueBot NG
• 4RR: August 23rd as 130.193.249.203
• Edit was reverted by User:Favonian, who then protected the article until September 23rd
• 5RR: August 23rd as Newinwiki8. Note that Newinwiki8 had to log in again to bypass protection.

Newinwiki8 had previously been warned about logging in and out in this discussion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning. User was previously warned about edit warning (in a different context) here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: notice

Comments:
Newinwiki8 has since been checkuser blocked. I suppose this can be closed now, unless anything more needs to be done? Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked indef by ToBeFree, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Mohammad Handura reported by User:Tenshi Hinanawi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mohammad Handura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307596801 by EditorShane3456 (talk)"
2. 15:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307595892 by Robert McClenon (talk) 3rr warning"
3. 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307594053 by EditorShane3456 (talk) reform the notice instead of blanking"
4. 15:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307586169 by Robert McClenon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Mohammad Handura "/* August 2025 */ explanation"

Comments:

• Edit warring at the dispute resolution noticeboard. 💡 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wrestlefix reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Money in the Bank (2023) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wrestlefix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307634138 by 177.245.204.88 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622142 by Originalchampion (talk)"
   2. 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622308 by Originalchampion (talk)"
   3. 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622032 by Originalchampion (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 18:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619767 by Originalchampion (talk)"
   2. 18:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619713 by Originalchampion (talk)"
4. 18:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619175 by 177.245.204.88 (talk)"
5. 17:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306234869 by Originalchampion (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Money in the Bank (2023)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "/* User:Wrestlefix */ new section"

Comments:

Wrestlefix continues to remove a reliable source such as f4wonline. It is considered as a reliable source. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Simonm223 reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: withdrawn)

Zak Smith:Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Simonm223: Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
Apologies is this is a duplicate as I didn't see it listed. USer is actively collapsing other editors comments curing an active RFC, particularly those that are opposed to their vote Slacker13 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This misformatted report is also entirely spurious. I have not even done one revert on the article talk page in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. it wasn't you. Is there a way to formally retract this? Slacker13 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Simonm223 reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: Duplicate report)

Page: Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
User is actively edit warring an oigoing RFC because consensus in building in a direction they oppose. They are collapsing other editors votes and moving votes that are opposite theirs. Please block for 30 days to allow the rfc to function properly Slacker13 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate of below. Same comment. This report is absurd. I have not done any reversions on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slacker13 You should use the preview button and check what your post will look like. Check your report again, it's extremely unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is my technical inexperience here. I did use the preview button.

And then when Simonm223 mentioned it wasn't him -- I tried to go into the source code to delete these two notices. Slacker13 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to formally retract this? Slacker13 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

And you saw the "Diffs of the user's reverts:" section and thought "Yep, that looks fine!"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Since this is both a broken report and the original poster is asking how to retract it, should we just remove this section, hat it, or wait and let an admin handle it?

Fairly sure that nobody would consider any of that controversial MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've marked this report as a duplicate. The other report has been withdrawn by the filer. — Newslinger talk 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

User:92.113.42.181 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks, blocked 2 days)

Page: Prostitution in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.113.42.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:34, 25 August 2025 First edits by anon

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:24, 25 August 2025 I have clearly explained. see the talk page.
2. 21:16, 25 August 2025 I have argued in the talk page LONG before. but no one is answering me and the other party without even enterering the talk page reverts me with no explanation many times. I have explained every act I maid many times including in the talk. so I am not edit waring. the party that does no explain and enters talk and reverts does. thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prostitution_in_Iran#Unreferenced_statements
3. 21:03, 25 August 2025 You haven’t even answered me on the talk page. This is obviously edit warring and ignoring Wikipedia’s guidelines
4. 20:56, 25 August 2025 Rv of unreferenced statements. For instance: "Leather boots are widely used..." — This statement, which is in the introduction, has 3 refs. and the image is based on it — except that all are Persian and non-English, none of the info has even mentioned the statements and have nothing about boots. All of the info removed are unreferenced or poorly referenced like this. Go to the talk page for more info and examples.
5. 20:25, 25 August 2025 The information that was removed was either unsupported by references, or the references provided were unreliable. In most cases, the information had no references at all, or the references did not back up the claims made. According to Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, all content should be verifiable and based on credible references. If you're not convinced, I suggest we discuss this further in line with Wikipedia's guidelines rather than edit waring. Thank you.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:59, 25 August 2025 Note additional comments on talk page: User talk:92.113.42.181#Edit warring notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Prostitution in Iran#Unreferenced statements seems more like wp:DIDNTHEARTHAT

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 21:45, 25 August 2025

Comments:

Anon appears to be whitewashing prostitution in Islam related articles. Adakiko (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 days for disruptive editing across related articles.​ — Newslinger talk 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Casper le fantome reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Already blocked for a week)

Page: Anti-Romani sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Casper le fantome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 19:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307796701 by Babysharkboss2 (talk)"
3. 19:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307795606 by Babysharkboss2 (talk)"
4. 19:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307795267 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 19:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Restored content after vandalism by StephenMackey. STill have to input all sources manually one by one. thanks steve"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor is disruptively replacing content with AI-generated content and violated WP:3RR after being warned twice. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am Casper le fantome, responding to the report by StephenMacky1 regarding alleged edit warring on the Anti-Romani sentiment article. I would like to clarify the situation and provide context for my actions.

1. Vandalism by StephenMacky1

StephenMacky1 has repeatedly deleted large sections of sourced historical content without discussion, leaving the article disjointed. These deletions constitute vandalism, not constructive editing, and are why the usual WP:3RR guidelines do not apply. My reverts were aimed at restoring accurate, sourced historical information.

2. Separate discussion with Babysharkboss2

I have taken the discussion regarding specific content separately with Babysharkboss2 to ensure proper consensus-building and to avoid conflicts. This demonstrates my commitment to collaboration and following Wikipedia’s dispute resolution processes. My understanding is that Stephen's vandalism has disrupted the text so much that I accidentally triggered a bot, which led Babyshark to revert back to Stephen vandalized version.

3. Use of AI

As English is not my first language, I sometimes use AI only for grammar and readability checks. All historical content is written and sourced by me, and AI has not created any historical claims.

4. Relevance of content

All restored material is directly relevant to the article, detailing the persecution, legal restrictions, and social marginalization of Roma across Europe. Claims that it is irrelevant or AI-generated are inaccurate.

5. Request

I respectfully ask administrators to review the edits and sources. My actions were restorative, not disruptive, and I request protection against unexplained deletions that remove verified historical content.

Thank you for your attention and fair consideration. Casper le fantome (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of one week by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Hanum143 reported by User:Erecorar (Result: Page EC protected indefinitely under CTOPS)

Page: Osmanabad district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanum143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and potentially affiliated IPs 42.104.221.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 42.104.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted^* to: Special:Diff/1307905775

Diffs of the user's reverts^*:

1. Special:Diff/1307935867
2. Special:Diff/1307935512
3. Special:Diff/1307934499
4. Special:Diff/1307929621
5. Special:Diff/1307933166
6. Special:Diff/1307928609
7. Special:Diff/1307928150
8. Special:Diff/1307905775

^*The edits given are not reverts; the user appears to be manually editing the lead sentence as well as random segments of the article each time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1307906809

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The change of the article's name has been discussed and opposed several times in Talk:Osmanabad_district. Hanum143 has been informed several times (Special:Diff/1307906809, Special:Diff/1307932057, Special:Diff/1307933561) of the existing discussion.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1307939690

Comments:
Osmanabad district has seen a flood of edits this morning from Hanum143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 42.104.221.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 42.104.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all seeking to nonconstructively rename parts of the article to reference Dharashiv District instead of its WP:COMMONNAME. Hanum143 attempted to cite a source for the new name on their talk page (Special:Diff/1307932749), though the source given is an unhelpful link to an official government website. The article already states "officially known as Dharashiv District". Most of these edits have been reverted by several RCPers this morning, including myself. Hanum143 and 42.104.222.112 have been warned already by several different users, to no effect. I suspect all three users are the same, and would recommend CheckUsering them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erecorar (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protected Extended-confirmed indefinitely under CTOPS (WP:CT/SA) by Yamaguchi先生. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:81567518W reported by User:Iljhgtn (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Adam Milstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81567518W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: User:81567518W appears to be ignoring the process of consensus forming at the article talk page and continues to just cry "scrubbing" without consideration of peer arguments around due weight and WP:CSECTION, WP:ONUS, and WP:CONSENSUS. They do appear to try and wait out the 24 mark for this related to 1RR as a page in the WP:PIA area, but then they also do appear to do so only just to game the policy and then push their preferred edit via brute force. I feel that if they should continue to discuss in the talk page and not simply revert and levy accusations if their edits are to be constructive.
Iljhgtn (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Donteatpigs reported by User:QuietHere (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: List of 2025 albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Donteatpigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC) "This album is being released through Spinefarm Records. The article linked lists Roadrunner by mistake. Creeper have been signed to Spinefarm Records since 2022, and that is the label this album is being released on, NOT Roadrunner."
2. 14:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC) "This album is being released on Spinefarm Records, not Roadrunner. Creeper have not been signed to Roadrunner since 2022."
3. 22:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Creeper have been signed to Spinefarm since 2022. They are no longer signed to Roadrunner."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of 2025 albums."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The source says the release is from Roadrunner Records, but the user insists on changing it to Spinefarm Records without providing a different/contradictory source. They've made the same edit at least four times (including this one from the 24th) despite numerous reversions from multiple users with clear explanations as to the issues, including one direct link to OR, and a talk page warning where I also linked to 3RR. User has a history of being blocked for adding unsourced information (1 and 2) but appears not to have learned their lesson. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, edit warring itself doesn't seem to be the main issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)