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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
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. |
User:Cherreparator reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
[edit]Page: Djoser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cherreparator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300471456 by Lone-078 (talk) Please feel free to do so."
- 00:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300291690 by Lone-078 (talk) per previous explanation; please don't ignore it."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Cherreparator "/* Djoser */ new section"
Comments:
Persistent addition of names backed by a clearly unreliable source - some dubious keywords on an online photo repository. I didn't notify the user via template (I coudn't find one specifically for unreliable sources), but I did communicate via edit summaries—to which the user responded in a way that made it clear they had no knowledge of or intention to follow neither WP:RS nor WP:CONSENSUS. An attempt to communicate via his talk page asking for better sources went unheeded. I have no intention of prolonging an edit war, so I'm requesting an administrator to intervene. Lone-078 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- The article originally listed only Djeser and Zoser, both unsourced. An IP then added a plausible source confirming these two plus Dyeser and Djosci. That edit was reverted, removing the only source backing any of the four spellings, yet the original unsourced variants were left in place. This contradicts WP:V. If we're rejecting the source, we need to remove all four variants, not just the ones it added. Cherreparator (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- On your talk page, I actually asked for a serious Egyptological source attesting the variants, but you promptly ignored me, content to simply include an unreliable source. It's only now that you've taken the time to respond constructively on a talk page. Anyway, fine by me to remove both the source in question and the four variants; these can be reinstated if reliable sources backing them are found. Lone-078 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you had read the edit summary for one of my edits (that you conspicuously left out of this argument), you would see that everything I stated above was already in the edit summary. I stand by it: either maintain the variant spellings and the source or remove them altogether. Also, maybe this link could be useful: https://www.djoser.org/post/the-hidden-genius-of-djoser-how-egypt-s-first-pyramid-builder-engineered-a-kingdom. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you could have civilly replied to me on your talk instead of playing dead until I, having no response from you, reverted again. Anyway I think we can agree to remove all 4 variants. Your link seems to be a self-published blog, which fails WP:RS; academical sources in Egyptology (books, papers etc) are needed. I'll look through the ones I have tomorrow for any possible English variants. Lone-078 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't "play dead". I had already explained my reasoning clearly in the edit summary. You chose to ignore it and reverted the edit days later using the same argument you'd already made. I saw no reason to restate what had been said. If anything, that was a closed loop on your end. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Cherreparator, I see nothing on the article's talk page, Talk:Djoser. Please use the talk page instead of edit summaries for discussion during a dispute, and have a look at WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS which both require those favoring inclusion (you) to find a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, ToBeFree. I find it baffling that the last "stable" version was restored despite the variant spellings still lacking sources. From my understanding, either the content gets sourced or removed. That it stayed in place for so long doesn't make it less unsourced. Just my take. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Cherreparator, I see no addition in Special:Diff/1300532160. If you had disputed the verifiability of content and removed it as part of your complaint, we'd be looking at a page without the disputed material indeed. But that's not what happened. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not here to advocate for the removal of unsourced claims because it matters to me personally. It doesn't. I don't care which spellings are kept or deleted. But if they're unsourced, they shouldn't be there, because that's Wikipedia's policy, not my preference. Acting like I needed to push harder for deletion misrepresents the issue. This isn't about what I want, it's about what the platform demands. If verifiability isn't enforced consistently, that's not on me. It's a credibility problem for Wikipedia. Take care. Cherreparator (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Cherreparator, I see no addition in Special:Diff/1300532160. If you had disputed the verifiability of content and removed it as part of your complaint, we'd be looking at a page without the disputed material indeed. But that's not what happened. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, ToBeFree. I find it baffling that the last "stable" version was restored despite the variant spellings still lacking sources. From my understanding, either the content gets sourced or removed. That it stayed in place for so long doesn't make it less unsourced. Just my take. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Cherreparator, I see nothing on the article's talk page, Talk:Djoser. Please use the talk page instead of edit summaries for discussion during a dispute, and have a look at WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS which both require those favoring inclusion (you) to find a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't "play dead". I had already explained my reasoning clearly in the edit summary. You chose to ignore it and reverted the edit days later using the same argument you'd already made. I saw no reason to restate what had been said. If anything, that was a closed loop on your end. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you could have civilly replied to me on your talk instead of playing dead until I, having no response from you, reverted again. Anyway I think we can agree to remove all 4 variants. Your link seems to be a self-published blog, which fails WP:RS; academical sources in Egyptology (books, papers etc) are needed. I'll look through the ones I have tomorrow for any possible English variants. Lone-078 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you had read the edit summary for one of my edits (that you conspicuously left out of this argument), you would see that everything I stated above was already in the edit summary. I stand by it: either maintain the variant spellings and the source or remove them altogether. Also, maybe this link could be useful: https://www.djoser.org/post/the-hidden-genius-of-djoser-how-egypt-s-first-pyramid-builder-engineered-a-kingdom. Cheers. Cherreparator (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- On your talk page, I actually asked for a serious Egyptological source attesting the variants, but you promptly ignored me, content to simply include an unreliable source. It's only now that you've taken the time to respond constructively on a talk page. Anyway, fine by me to remove both the source in question and the four variants; these can be reinstated if reliable sources backing them are found. Lone-078 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Anpanman11 reported by User: Sybercracker
[edit]Page: Muslim Gujjars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Anpanman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:39, 14 July 2025 [1]
- 14:34, 14 July 2025 [2]
- 18:32, 14 July 2025 [3]
- 18:33, 14 July 2025 [4]
- 14:52, 14 July 2025 [5]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- [6] "Warning: Edit warring."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #Talk:Muslim Gujjars#Get Consensus first
Comments:
Persistent addition and store of their own prefered revision his cited source is outdated and based on 1933 caste census of British India even in the journal there is only mention of 44 lakh Muslim Gujjars in India not in Pakistan. I've added sources in infobox were recently published one was published by Government university of Hazara, KPK, 2nd source was a published book of a notable Pakistani author. Sybercracker (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sybercracker, the page is already protected in a way that prevents you and Anpanman11 from editing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- So what about violation of 3RR on same article by Anpanman11? Sybercracker (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree Sybercracker (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sybercracker, what exactly are you looking for, punishment without the slightest preventative aspect? We don't do that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree Sybercracker (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- So what about violation of 3RR on same article by Anpanman11? Sybercracker (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Alexendrya ohio and User:TerritoryComprises reported by User:TonySt (Result: 1 week partial block for both of them)
[edit]Page: Operation Desert Hawk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
- Alexendrya ohio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TerritoryComprises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the TerritoryComprises's reverts:
- 2025-07-15T14:23:07Z
- 2025-07-15T14:11:22Z
- 2025-07-15T14:03:19Z
- 2025-07-15T13:57:32Z
- 2025-07-14T16:54:42Z
Diffs of the Alexendrya ohio's reverts:
(Also additional IP reverts in page history)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most conversation appears to have taken place on User talk:TerritoryComprises
Diffs of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I am a third-party who in uninvolved and saw this happen while doing WP:RCP. —tony 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- TerritoryComprises was the one who created unproductive edits his edit is reverted by another editors but he again make the same edit with false claim that no reference support previous statement meanwhile there was a source like book name and page number is mentioned, but he removed that reference and statement.
- When I rised my objection on that and I removed his edit he again make the same edit, i revert his edit and invite him on talk page but he again revert my edit without reaching any conclusion. Alexendrya ohio (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Dispute has not been resolved by ohio she has been making mulitple false edits and vandalising pages to suit her narrative TerritoryComprises (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Addendum -- both users have continued edits and reverts back and forth since they were notified of this discussion. Just now noticing both accounts are brand new as of the last few days and this page has a history of disruptive editing. —tony 16:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony. I have partially blocked both of them from the article for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Chescoco reported by User:Czello (Result: 1 week block)
[edit]Page: Kemi Badenoch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chescoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC) ""
- 14:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 12:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC) to 12:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- 12:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC) "Just a little edit"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kemi Badenoch."
- 14:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC) "+"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Just a note that the most recent edit was in a different part of the article but still edit warring over the same content. — Czello (music) 14:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Adonay Kub reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: )
[edit]Page: Iron Man (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adonay Kub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
- 05:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
- 03:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
- 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 03:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Insertion of long short description on Iron Man (2008 film)."
- 05:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Iron Man (2008 film)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeatedly changing short descriptions to be longer against page consensus and WP:SD40. Ignored notices and failing to communicate. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
User:206.83.98.234 reported by User:Ixocactus (Result: warned)
[edit]Page: Trump Always Chickens Out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 206.83.98.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "/* In the media */ WP:AIIMGBLP"
- 00:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300897678 by Augmented Seventh (talk) Unexplained restoration of BLP violation WP:AIIMGBLP"
- 00:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300897030 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"
- 00:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300884068 by Tryptofish (talk) WP:AIIMGBLP is an actual policy unlike the rubbish you're relying on"
- 22:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC) "Restore to version without BLP vio"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Trump Always Chickens Out."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Disruptive IP account Ixocactus (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
You warned me for "if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" which I did not do. WP:AIIMGBLP forbids AI images of living people. WP:3RRBLP is an exemption to the 3RR policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.98.234 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Warned — @206.83.98.234: normally this would still be blockable as you were also edit warring over other parts of the article simultaneously (until your final edit). That said, you're absolutely right about citing the biographies of living persons exception, and AI-generated images of living people (unless they're themselves notable in context, which doesn't seem to be the case here) are part of that policy. I would still recommend seeking the help of others in the future (for example on the biographies of living persons noticeboard and/or the article's talk page) rather than repeatedly reverting, and definitely keep the content of the revert narrowly specific to the BLP violation if you feel you absolutely must repeatedly revert, otherwise you risk being blocked for the other parts of the revert. --slakr\ talk / 12:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Tito Omburo reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
[edit]Page: Square root of 10 (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:
- 02:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300912845 by CNMall41 (talk) Lack of AfC consensus. This was posted as a draft *minutes ago*. The consensus is against restoration."
- 02:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300911831 by CNMall41 (talk) restored last consensus revision"
- 02:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Restored last consensus revision"
- 00:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "ridiculous. This draft took a few *seconds* to move to mainspace? There was a previous *deletion discussion*. Try again."
- 00:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "I've had enough. Restored last WP:CONSENSUS version, established through proper discussion. Take to WP:AfC, and ping WT:WPM if you want a new article here."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
On user's talk page with this thread and my talk page with this thread. Also part of an ANI thread that user started. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments:
- I came here to file this exact report, but I see it has already been done. The last edit should be reverted to the WP:AfC-approved draft, which can be discussed civilly if there are further content disputes on this matter. BD2412 T 03:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is lack of consensus for an article on the original AfD, an as evidenced by my first revert to the prior consensus revision (a redirect). This article was moved from AfC, to mainspace, in minutes. Several of the above reverts may have even been in draft space. This is absurd tag-teaming. Block me if you must, cops. I care about editing and producing content. But I cannot abide bullying. Tito Omburo (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- It went through AFC, if you disagree with it, the solution here is to take the article to AFD so the new state of the article can be debated, not insist that a 10 year old discussion about an article that evolved well beyond the state it was in 10 years ago is binding. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Pospeak reported by User:FromCzech (Result: )
[edit]Page: FC Zbrojovka Brno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pospeak (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: [7]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]
Comments:
The user ignored that their edit was reverted not only by me, but also by another user. I have no intention of an edit war and I even edited the page according to their suggestion on 15 July (based on the update in the cited source). 3RR warning was given and a discussion was started with the user on their page for a similar violation of 3RR on the same page in February 2025. The user recently misused uw-3rr and gave me what they calls "the last warning". I have started a discussion on this user's page several times, while he only approaches reverting and now threatening, hence this report. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Dear friends from Wikipedia, allow me to defend myself against this attack by the user FromCzech. It is great that links to the history of changes on the FC Zbrojovka Brno page were provided here, which will be used against the user FromCzech. Just look at the history.
- This user's vandalism began when a player with the full name Kauan Carneiro Da Silva came to the club. Immediately after joining the club, he chose the nickname Kaká, which was presented by both the club and other media. I documented everything in the history of changes. However, the user absurdly insisted on the name Kauan Carneiro and constantly reverted the changes, arguing by absurdly referring to the official website of the competition. However, there are no rosters there as of today. I wrote to him that the player chooses his nickname, then tells the club about it and only then does the league website adopt it. So it only depends on what is presented by the club!
- The user kept reverting changes to his name, thus violating the rules and committing unjustified vandalism. If the user is unable to understand this simple sequence, he should refrain from such actions in the future.
- Another user Cloudz679 argued that the roster on the website does not contain this player. But this was at a time when the roster was empty, because it was undergoing reconstruction before the new season. By this logic, the entire roster would have to be deleted from the Wiki pages, not only for this club, but also for others.
- The user consistently refuses to admit any editing errors, not even ex post, as was shown, for example, with the player William Mackleyther, where he also did not respect the fact that the player chose a new nickname, although publicly available sources spoke against him.
- His continued reversions seem to ignore Wikipedia’s principles of respecting subject self-identification and the need for consensus when there is disagreement.
- I encourage him to stop reverting and instead engage in discussion on the article's talk page, in line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines. Persisting in this manner may constitute edit warring and lead to administrative intervention. Pospeak (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you misunderstood that this is about user behavior, not page content. In the edit summary at the beginning of this disagreement, I listed examples of four sources supporting my claim, but you revert saying that the official page of your favorite football club is more important. Even if you were 100% right, you can't revert repeatedly and you can't go against the majority of users, after Cloudz679 get involved. Whenever we had a dispute, it was me who started the discussion instead of reverting (see your Talk page) and never you. Moreover, you are not trying to resolve the disagreement peacefully, but you accused me of vandalism and edit warring. It looks like you are WP:NOTHERE. FromCzech (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am involved here as Pospeak has been repeatedly adding unsourced information, and when I challenged it, I was reverted. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Prefer we work together to nurture these pages to be valid. In terms of content, we shouldn't be attempting to host the Z Brno (or other clubs) squad's new, never-published version, when it hasn't yet been published anywhere else in that form. And for behaviour, bludgeoning reverts, particularly on this specific page/subtopic, over a sustained period, does suggest WP:NOTHERE. C679 05:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- You may have missed it in the flood of edit war, but I cited an article on the club's website as a source. And other articles were in various media. As for the roster on the club's website that you referred to, it was under construction at the time and did not contain any players. And yes, we can fix that by adding a link to the club's website in addition to the roster link, e.g. in the edit summary. That could be a solution. Pospeak (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Also adding that Pospeak mentioning edit warring twice (once each to different users - myself - edit 3 at the top and once to FromCzech in [9]) in the recent history of the page suggests some kind of siege mentality and among the most troubling parts of this incident. C679 06:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are confusing cause and effect. I repeat again, just like in the past. If you were able to admit a mistake in the shadow of clearly sourced articles on the club's official website and in the media, then there would be no need for any editing war. Let's please get back to the facts and content of the page, because that is what matters. You did not cite any sources, you only insisted on a name that the player did not choose. Just like in the case of the previously mentioned player. Of course, reality proved me right when you look at the current team roster.
- Completely missing the point here. WP:BURDEN is on you as the editor adding material. Incendiary comments in your edit summaries - as well as those written at 10:00 UTC today and appearing below this comment - and the refusal to accept alternative opinions do not contribute to a collaborative project. C679 12:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your claim that if I were 100% right, I still cannot go against the decision of 2 users (who are therefore writing 100% lies) is unbelievable. If a player freely chooses a nickname according to his right, there is no possible peaceful path. If you claimed that the capital of the Czech Republic is Mladá Boleslav, I will not make peace with you either... Pospeak (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am involved here as Pospeak has been repeatedly adding unsourced information, and when I challenged it, I was reverted. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Prefer we work together to nurture these pages to be valid. In terms of content, we shouldn't be attempting to host the Z Brno (or other clubs) squad's new, never-published version, when it hasn't yet been published anywhere else in that form. And for behaviour, bludgeoning reverts, particularly on this specific page/subtopic, over a sustained period, does suggest WP:NOTHERE. C679 05:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you misunderstood that this is about user behavior, not page content. In the edit summary at the beginning of this disagreement, I listed examples of four sources supporting my claim, but you revert saying that the official page of your favorite football club is more important. Even if you were 100% right, you can't revert repeatedly and you can't go against the majority of users, after Cloudz679 get involved. Whenever we had a dispute, it was me who started the discussion instead of reverting (see your Talk page) and never you. Moreover, you are not trying to resolve the disagreement peacefully, but you accused me of vandalism and edit warring. It looks like you are WP:NOTHERE. FromCzech (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Foodhistory101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Sock blocked)
[edit]Page: Windrush Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foodhistory101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1301013472 by Belbury (talk) no reason not to remove ss it's unsourced"
- 16:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300999839 by UrielAcosta (talk) no objections on talk page and unsourced"
- 15:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300998314 by UrielAcosta (talk) j"
- 15:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "talk page and image is unsourced how do we know it’s windrush day?"
- 13:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "talk page removed image which is unsourced"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Windrush Day."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC) "/* Unsourced Lead image */ expand comment"
Comments:
Apparent Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hssstrt block evasion, repeatedly removing a photo of an event as "unsourced". Belbury (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely per the above noted SPI.-- Ponyobons mots 18:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
