Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:AN/3WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EWWP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEWWP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RRWP:AN/3RR

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372
Incidents (archives, search)
1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184
1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496	497
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Sokoban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Go D. Usopp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [2]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Talk:Sokoban — Lead wording about creator and release date
Talk:Sokoban — Lead that frames the article

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

Comments:

Hello. There has been an ongoing disagreement over the wording of the lead section.

After reverting a bold edit with a descriptive edit summary, this user reinstated their version without initiating discussion on the talk page, which is not in line with BRD.

To avoid participating in an edit war, I started two extended talk page topics, and later I participated actively on it.

After discussion for about 3 days, and without consensus, I reverted back (mentioning this in the edit summary). Now, the user reinstated their contested version again.

Additionally, in an edit summary and on the talk page, this user has made comments that might be considered non-collaborative:

Comment 1: "This is WP:OWN territory to disregard others' edits".

Comment 2: "Boldly reverting others".

Carloseow (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For both comments, I was reminding you about the policies of WP:OWN and WP:BADREVERT. Your constructive edits and knowledge on the topic are appreciated, but reverting my edits to dispute every small detail isn't a good way to facilitate conversation. I appreciate reversions of my good faith edits with reason, but this is on a level beyond what I consider reasonable. It's frustrating to edit this particular page when all of my edits are scrutinized by minute detail, instead of editors improving on each other's edits for the benefit of Wikipedia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Carloseow & @Go D. Usopp, why not use WP:RFC? —tony 15:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected In full. For a week. Because I had to do this before a little over a month ago. And since we don't like to do this too much, if you come back here with another request in about the same amount of time I will just block both of you from the page indefinitely. I don't want that and neither do you. Get some other people involved in this discussion. Please. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: KBS News 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 211.251.53.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to KBS NEWS 24"
2. 02:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to KBS NEWS 24"
3. 02:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to KBS NEWS 24"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on KBS News 24."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly page move without consensus. Also on CGTN related pages. -Lemonaka 03:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ordinarily, I'd have declined this as not violating 3RR. But it turns out that I have previously blocked this IP over a year and a half ago for disruption in the same topic area (Korean TV). I can only conclude they did not learn enough from that experience. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: NXT The Great American Bash (2025) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:4040:58D2:3C00:A552:36:5F90:D9DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Comments:

Intentional removal of sourced content. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range: 2600:4040:58D2:3C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pierre Poilievre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 96.52.40.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "Revision was valid, sourced and relevant. Undid revision 1299471179 by Zefr (talk)"
2. 15:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "Stop changing this. It is relevant and sourced. Undid revision 1299469493 by ARandomName123 (talk)"
3. 15:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "It is factual and relevant whether you like it or not. Undid revision 1299469191 by Weirdguyz (talk)"
4. 15:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "https://albertalabourhistory.org/a-shocking-racist-event-in-albertas-history-the-aryan-fest/, https://distributionarchives.cbcrc.ca/en/items/a102c48b-d577-448d-8192-d71ddd783ce8 Undid revision 1299468238 by Weirdguyz (talk)"
5. 15:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "It absolutely is referenced. Both in news articles and on wikipedia itself. Undid revision 1299467077 by Weirdguyz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC) to 16:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC) on User talk:96.52.40.208

Comments:

IP repeatedly adding contentious material to a BLP. Weirdguyz (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Samma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir Calculus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] (my sourced addition that was reverted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

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

Comments:
I attempted to improve the Samma dynasty article by including a third reliable source after a previous soucre was contested. Despite posting reasoning on the article's talk page, both users reverted my edits without engaging in discussion. I resctfully request admin review for possible edit warring and failure to follow WP:BRD. Veritasphere (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits once only! I couldn't see any consensus on the article talk page! Veritasphere, you could have given some time to Sir Calculus to respond, but you engaged in edit warring instead. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: This is not the first time. He has reverted my edits on many other articles like Soomra dynasty and Kalhora dynasty etc. As for Sir Calculus, just check his record he has already been blocked multiple times for adding incorrect information and unsourced content. Veritasphere (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kalhora dynasty article, the user removed sourced content regarding the use of Persian as the official language by Kalhora rulers and replaced it with a reference to Humera Naz, a source of unclear academic standing. This is problematic, especially because Ghulam Muhammad Lakho, a well-established historian, has explicitly written in his published works and also stated in an academic seminar۔^[1] that Persian was indeed the administrative or court language of the Kalhora dynasty.

Ironically, the same user cites Lakho as a source in the article on the Soomra dynasty, yet chooses to disregard his authority in the Kalhora case. This inconsistency in source usage is concerning and needs to be addressed.Veritasphere (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Molikog Article: Adult_human_female

1. [First revert](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&oldid=1295152611)
2. [Second revert](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&oldid=1295020257)
3. [Third revert](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&oldid=1295152611)
4. [Fourth revert](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&oldid=1295243443)
5. [Fifth revert](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_human_female&oldid=1299401822)

User Molikog has repeatedly reverted content on the article Adult human female without engaging in meaningful discussion or attempting to reach a consensus. This constitutes a violation of the three-revert rule (3RR) and is a clear case of edit warring.

Despite efforts by other editors to discuss and resolve content disputes, Molikog has consistently reverted between conflicting versions of the article, disregarding the collaborative editing process. This disruption undermines the work of others and prevents productive discussions about the article's content.

• Molikog has reintroduced content that was previously removed following discussion and consensus, without providing adequate justification or engaging in any further dialogue on the article's talk page.
• This repetitive pattern of reverting without consensus creates a cycle of undoing progress and impedes the editing process.

I respectfully request that the administrators review the diffs provided and take appropriate action against Molikog for edit warring. They have violated the three-revert rule (3RR) and their actions are disruptive to the collaborative process on this article. A quick check on the edit history shows a very clear pattern of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia articles and starting Edit Wars on purpose with other Wikipedia editors. KangRay (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 edit today. 1 edit yesterday. Almost a month to find the 3rd edit...so it doesn't look like they have, recently at least, violated 3RR on that article. --Onorem (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take a look at the edit history of Molikog and the numerous Edit warring he has initiated that has lead to numerous Talk pages being opened about his disruptive behavior that is becoming a bother to other Editors ...for example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-gender_movement#June_2025_edit_warring

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adult_human_female#%22hate_speech%22 KangRay (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using an AI to write a report about edit warring is a bad idea; has reintroduced content that was previously removed is a factually incorrect description of content removals. Also, none of the links above are diffs; they all point to a specific revision without actually showing a difference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17] [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:

Hammelsmith has repeatedly reinserted challenged content across two protected and contentious articles related to Michael Jackson, despite multiple reverts by other editors and without establishing consensus on the talk page. This behavior violates WP:EDITWAR and is especially problematic under WP:DS (discretionary sanctions), which apply to these biographies and sensitive legal topics.

The user has made at least 9 reinsertions of similar material across two pages within 48 hours, ignoring the WP:BRD cycle and escalating the dispute. Several reverts were accompanied by edit summaries from other editors explicitly warning against edit warring. The user continues to reframe and reinsert the same disputed claims without waiting for consensus.

Requesting administrative review and appropriate action. Israell (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I have done something wrong, I sincerely apologize. All I can say is that I honestly do thoroughly check the sources against the content before I delete something that is just not written in the sources, as I did with this edit. I checked the Ebert source & the Halperin source. Neither source said "The DA and the sheriff's photographer stated that the description was accurate, but the jurors felt that the photos did not match the description." I even checked the internet before I made my edit. I was just upset when Israell added the sentence back stating it was in the sources when it just wasn't.

I also noticed some non-NPOV edits over a week ago, on some MJ-related pages, like this edit. Whenever I remove some words or phrasing I always give proper Wiki policy justification as to why - my edits are not frivolous.

I also had a long time on the MJ Talk page today which started with this edit which was intended to be a neutral, non-POV pushing edit. I really do try to engage civilly with editors - but some threats and aspersions do come my way at times.

I think Israell means well, but she sometimes makes very long edits on the Talk like this & I don't want to have a Forum discussion. I prefer to just agree to disagree with her viewpoints and that seems to incur some wrath, which is what inevitably happens on Talk pages.

I hope I haven't been disruptive, because I like contributing to pages, but if I need to become more familiar with the policies, I'm certainly willing to learn and listen. Hammelsmith (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this is not "very long" or even "long" at all. My replies are pertinent to the points raised and only pertain to the article.

I even stated in this edit that the point of that article is not to serve as a discourse on sexual assault when certain users began to use the talk page as a forum, strongly implying that that civil settlement was an indication of guilt.

TruthGuardians had to make a much longer edit in order to explain to certain editors that the Talk page cannot be used as a forum, that reliable sources and consensus are needed, and that "repeated insinuations that a settlement is tantamount to an admission of guilt are not only inaccurate but violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Hammelsmith has repeatedly ignored warnings not to ping a string of editors that are either uninvolved in the discussion or haven't been active on Wikipedia for years. Tbhotch, for instance, asked Hammelsmith to stop summoning them, but Hammelsmith kept at it. Israell (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that a Robert Christgau paragraph had been removed from the MJ page on November 8th so I restored it with my justification summary here. That paragraph had been on the page for many years, but of course, Israell just likes to revert my edits. So I had to take the matter to the Talk page. The editor who inadvertently removed the paragraph supported restoring it here and here. But, of course, Israell just reverted it again, which I found pretty strange. I only ask for voluntary editor contributions to resolve a Talk page matter faster & I have never ever asked anybody to vote in my favour.

I believe that Israell is a well meaning person, but it is really exhausting when she keeps addressing me personally asking me to just agree with her. Like this edit. I find it strange that she can't accept that I don't want to debate our different opinions with each other, only the appropriateness of the sources. Israell does not have to like me, just I wish she would take it easy with the hostility. I am willing to engage with her regarding my judgments behind edits, but there is no use discussing personal perspectives because that is rarely resolved on a Talk page.

I'm just going to speak frankly and say that Israell want to get rid of me because she wants to scrub the MJ pages of anything that would make his behaviour questionable, like with this edit to the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations page. I had checked the sources on the page for a particular statement and it failed the check, as I said here. Now she wants to completely delete Bill Dworin's statement here, convinced it is part of a conspiracy theory. To be honest, I don't always enjoys having debates with editors determined to rally to preserve Michael Jackson's good name, but I do it for the sake of keeping some balance and encyclopedia integrity. Frankly, Israell seems convinced that every edit I make on an MJ page is in the service of evil. It's just not so. I'm familiar with some newsworthy information and I try to help with the articles if I can, and I'm willing to engage civilly with all the editors.

I will say again that if I have done something wrong in terms of engaging with page edits or other editors, I certainly apologize most sincerely. I hope it doesn't affect the quality of the articles, and obviously, it was never ever my intention to incur so much ire from Israell. I will take this time as an opportunity to learn more mindfulness while editing before I approach the problematic pages. Hammelsmith (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly invite the administrator who'll investigate this to have a look at the Michael Jackson talk page discussion.

Several editors have lengthily explained why the Robert Christgau quote is not only inappropriate (filled with terms like "weirdo" and "grotesque" without even explaining the reasoning behind those terms) but also too long!

Never17 explained in detail why that quote from Dworin is not admissible, and Truth Guardians asked Hammelsmith to please justify, per Wikipedia's policy, the addition of that quote by Dworin.

And no, I have never "personally" (on a talk page at that) demanded that Hammelsmith agree with me; Hammelsmith was repeated asked by several editors to cooperate and stop edit warring. Israell (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just have the impression that your version of "cooperate" means "agree with us", "rally towards us". It is acceptable for encyclopedias to include quotations from well-known music critics and "she said, then he said" newsworthy statements. My edits are honestly not about warring, but about maintaining an impartial WikiVoice and neutrality. Hammelsmith (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is that you've been arguing with several editors and engaging in edit warring for several days. Your edit warring is the only pertinent matter here, and you are now assuming bad faith. I have nothing more to add. Israell (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a dispute by Hammelsmith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Michael_Jackson_discussion_2 . It includes arguments from other editors. Israell (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite multiple warnings, both in edit summaries and on their talk page, Hammelsmith has continued to engage in edit warring across two high-profile and contentious articles: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and Michael Jackson. They were specifically instructed to bring any disputed content to the talk page rather than continuing to revert or reinsert challenged material. While engaging on the talk page is encouraged, it is not a justification to continue reverting in the meantime, especially not repeatedly and across multiple sections of the article with the exact same disputed content.

Hammelsmith was explicitly informed that if a consensus could not be reached, the article should remain at the last stable version, per Wikipedia policy on disputed content (see WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD). Yet they chose to ignore this, reintroducing similar or identical content nine times within less than 24 hours, sometimes making minor tweaks to evade scrutiny but clearly violating the spirit and letter of WP:3RR and WP:EW.

Wikipedia’s editorial process is not based on individual conviction or repeated reassertion of a viewpoint, but on verifiability, reliable sourcing, consensus, and adherence to community norms. There is never an excuse for edit warring. Disagreements over sourcing or interpretation must be resolved collaboratively, not through persistence or attrition.

This case is further exacerbated by the fact that the articles fall under Discretionary Sanctions due to their association with being one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages of all time, living persons and legal issues. Editors are held to a higher standard in these areas, and repeated disruption in such topics justifies administrative intervention.

We appreciate Hammelsmith’s expressed willingness to learn. However, continued disruption, even if done in good faith, cannot be allowed to undermine Wikipedia’s collaborative editing model. A temporary editing restriction may be necessary to restore stability and enforce editorial norms.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no surprise that TruthGuardians wishes to air his personal grievances with me too. I guess to them, I represent the worst of the worst. Either because I must personally believe all the reliable sources that I think should be added to pages (I don't believe all the sources necessarily), or because I won't be intimidated by them. Their version of resolving matters "collaboratively" often tends to mean "agree with how I want to rewrite it". I feel I am a collaborator, and I'm certainly not a pushover. It just bothers me when I see Wiki being used to push a certain narrative and to rage incessantly against any dissenting voices. Hammelsmith (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is inappropriate for ANI. Your remarks violate WP:NPA by making personal accusations, suggesting that I am “raging incessantly,” pushing a narrative, or trying to intimidate dissenting voices. This framing is not only inaccurate but inflammatory. Per WP:FOC, discussions, especially at ANI, must be centered on conduct and content, not personal grievances or assumptions about motives. I’ve participated in this dispute with reference to policy and reliable sourcing, not emotion. Editors are encouraged to disagree, but accusations of bad faith are disruptive and unproductive. I respectfully ask that we return the focus to conduct and policy. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am mistaken, then so be it, and I apologize if you were offended by that. My opinion happens to be that is that this is about rage. Hammelsmith (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Portuguese language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Brazilian Portuguese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Like56d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31], [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38]
7. [39]
8. [40]
9. [41]
10. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43], [44], [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:

Like56d has repeatedly reverting both Portuguese language and Brazilian Portuguese. Most reverts are made to Brazilian Portuguese. Another user, Likebr 20 also engaging edit war, which is biased, misleading, and false accusations of vandalism. As for Portuguese language, this map is false and clearly POV, and it's definitely not cultural in the U.S. or Japan. See this recent ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editing issues. Absolutiva 11:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Halil Dervişoğlu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.155.34.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55]
8. [56]
9. [57]
10. [58]
11. [59]
12. [60]
13. [61]
14. [62]
15. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:
I'm sorry about the mess here, I'm not sure how to use this form. The disruptive user goes by multiple addresses. All I'm trying to do is to keep the article (mostly my creation) clean, but they persistently revert and make bad edits. Beatpoet (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Portal:Current events/2025 July 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.98.65.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC) "Probably deleted by mistake. In the news worldwide with international impact"
2. 17:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC) "Incorrect reasoning removing. All ships that sank after a Houthi attacks on commercial vessels have an article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC) "Introduction to contentious topics: a-i) (AA"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of 1RR and ECR. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment:

• 1)My first edit was about removing the link Eternity C, referring to this edit (in summary: got rid of red links that aren't likely to be wikipedia articles). I added the full sentence; that was wrong because it was already covered under 'Armed conflicts and attacks'.
• 2) So “Introduction to contentious topics” is in fact not completely true.
• 3) XYZ1233212 deleted both news lines.
• 4) Because I thought one was removed by error I placed it back. This was not the sentence I placed before by myself.
• 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that important, but the Eternity-link was added in the edit after me. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And an article is created Attacks on the Eternity C. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Star Awards 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robertsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments: A disruptive edting occur on the Star Awards page, result is unresolved. Even get treated with faulty warnings [75] (Unknown152438 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Well there is a confusion that, one of the edits that – robertsky did was just for one category, and also for one ceremony, which has not been very consistant for each and every year, why would people cannot help to improve the rest of the page, while just to get warred into a specific section? (Unknown152438 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Issue is related to MOS:HEADINGS where non-proper nouns are to be in sentence case, further MOS issue is also found at WP:NOCHARACTERS where For ease of reading and to reduce redundancy, characters should generally not be included for names or terms that have their own articles. Readers who wish to see the native representation should be able to find it on the linked article. I have tried to reasoned with @Unknown152438 on their talk page, but they just don't get it. – robertsky (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think MOS:AMP also applies for one of the headings. Knitsey (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey Indeed. Thanks for the catch. – robertsky (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky Please do help to improve every section of the page that suites the MOS:HEADINGS, if you are not willing to, revert it back to what is necessary. (Unknown152438 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I have done so. And also have went through all of the previous years' articles to fix the headings accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen any significant changes. Therefore, once I goes online on Wikipedia, it will likely revert back to its original state that last I edited. (Unknown152438 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

huh. please don't revert without reviewing the MOS. There are multiple issues raised already, not just HEADINGS; AMP; Chinese characters, etc. – robertsky (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry Charles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]
7. [83]
8. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86][87][88]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [89]

Comments: Through 19 years of many hundreds of contributions with only one or two comparatively minor issues with an editor or administrator, this is actually the first and only time I've encountered such an unnecessarily extreme conflict with an individual and escalating reversions that I've been compelled to take inordinate time to attempt to address as advised through the user's talk page to no avail. Notwithstanding my own misunderstandings and increasing frustration which I concede, I believe the record will show my good faith efforts at every turn to submit factual information based on credible and approved reliable sources, only to see reversions time and again which ultimately ended with demonstrably false information for the third or more time which the user in question knowingly posted only on what I deem an irrationally misguided principle of adherence to Wikipedia's rule on synthesis at the actual expense of the site's credibility with a verifiably false detail. Not only did I repeatedly request proper adjudication with at least two attempted corrections as well as one talk page entry. But I also contend through the talk page, given the absurdly conflicting lack of logic in at least one of the user's responses which I readily deconstructed, and the nature of the numerous reversions in violation of the policy limit, I have every reason to believe the user was intentionally provoking this upset under false pretenses of authority and equally unacceptable wholly faulty logic. RRawpower (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]