Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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.

Update this 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:GregariousMadness reported by User:Eritr (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 15 (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GregariousMadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Despite my efforts, the editor who filed this report (User:Eritr) does not seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. They have given zero evidence of the claim that the subject did not attend their stated alma mater, while multiple WP:RS from 2020 and 2021 state that they did ([9] [10] [11]). The editor has yet to procure a single reliable source to support their claim, and despite being asked multiple times to provide evidence, they have refused to do so and continued to revert. To the closing admin, please see the talk page. I suspect that WP:BOOMERANG might also apply here. Please also note that the diff of the 3RR warning above was posted after they violated 3RR, after I posted on their talk page. –GM 21:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor has tried to sneak in another edit here, despite the consensus on the talk page. They have shown a consistent lack of communication in good faith, and I suspect this is just vandalism at this point. –GM 16:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone please look at this notice. I don't have the patience to continue doing this, as this editor either just doesn't get how Wikipedia works, or purposely WP:POVPUSHING. –GM 07:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

They have now violated WP:3RR twice. They have yet to give any evidence of their claim and they simply refuse to understand how Wikipedia works, with a flagrant disregard for its policies. At this point, I am convinced that they are trolling. [12] [13] [14] [15]. –GM 07:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The matter is very simple: this anonymous subject who goes by '15' cannot be found in the official MIT alumni database.
That being said, GregariousMadness's behavior seems excessive and intolerant, as they aren't allowing any other user to edit the article or even add a tag. Eritr (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence of your claim despite being asked to do so multiple times, especially on a BLP article. You are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's policies, even as they were pointed out to you multiple times. A random editor's claim with no evidence whatsoever does not supersede the multiple WP:RS that support the claim. –GM 07:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, as disruptive as the path here may have been, the verifiability of this content about a living person has been challenged in good faith. The burden to provide evidence and the onus to obtain a consensus for including the content is on those favoring inclusion (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS), and I'm not impressed to see that the current sourcing in such a dispute boils down to "the subject said so themselves". You can now start an RfC to obtain the required consensus for re-adding the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: With all due respect, I believe this is a huge mistake. I never violated WP:3RR; the first two reverts were for the template at the top, and the other two were for the inline tag. And second, the person challenging the claim still has not provided any evidence. You are taking their completely unfounded claim as equally sound as one that is actually supported by multiple WP:RS. This is like removing the statement "The Earth is round" because an editor insists that the Earth being round is not verifiable, and that because a single editor believes it to be flat, it should be removed altogether. –GM 10:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, the burden of evidence isn't on them. They don't need to provide reliable sources to disprove statements in a biography. The existence of good-faith concerns (acknowledging that you don't view them as good-faith and there's a chance they're actually trolling) alone is reason enough to remove material for now and to require a consensus about what should be in the article. And if the matter is as obvious/clear as it seems to be to some of the discussion participants, then finding a formal consensus about this should be easy. I'm not yet sure what a good RfC question would be; I guess it could have two parts: Whether the part sourced to multiple references (having been at MIT) should be restored, and whether the self-claims of having received three degrees should be included with attribution to the subject.

Regarding the block itself, you have clearly edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: the burden of evidence isn't on them. They don't need to provide reliable sources to disprove statements in a biography. I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that I can just take any BLP article, pick a statement that's already supported by multiple RS's, then add a "Dubious" template and insist that this statement is incorrect without providing any evidence, and that alone is enough of a justification to remove the statement? That seems very backwards and not at all how I'm familiar with Wikipedia. Surely something like that would be considered WP:POVPUSHING or WP:UNDUE? –GM 10:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, that would be a good example of what WP:POINT is about. Yes, you can do so, but your imaginary example doesn't happen in good faith. Whether the sources for the statement in the current given case are actually as strong as you imply they are, I wouldn't be so sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: To clarify, I would never do that to prove a point, as I respect Wikipedia too much to do something like that. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of being able to do so if I, for whatever reason, was looking to vandalize an article of a subject that I didn't particularly like. I'm not convinced at all that this editor was acting in good faith, because I've asked them multiple times to provide evidence (which should be rather easy since they claim that they have access to this database that others don't), and yet they continued to outright ignore this request. If the editor disputing a claim presented some amount of evidence supporting their stance, then I see that being perfectly valid, but I don't see how it makes sense for the editor to simply be able to refuse to provide the evidence of their claim, and still be taken seriously. I don't think it's fair that I'm being punished equally as the other editor for trying to prevent what is ostensibly vandalism. –GM 10:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you'd actually do that; it was clearly a thought experiment. If I understand correctly, the claim of having access to MIT's alumni database isn't inherently absurd as, at least according to a quick Google search, that seems to be a service actually provided to all alumni of the university. Eritr isn't a new account registered solely for besmirching the article subject's reputation; they've been on Wikipedia for over 2 years and made 200 edits before the dispute. They made a few newbie mistakes on their way but they hadn't been accused of vandalism until you decided that their actions must surely be malicious. I don't think they are. I'm not sure which kind of "evidence" you are looking for, either negative evidence of the article subject's MIT claims which is extremely hard to obtain just like disproving conspiracy theories is often impossible, or copies from the MIT Alumni database to prove their access, sharing non-public personal information that would need to be oversighted afterwards. Assuming that the concerns are valid, you're asking for something impossible, and that's why WP:BURDEN works the other way around. I'm not much impressed by an anonymous individual claiming to have graduated from MIT with degrees in three disciplines and sources not known for their meticulous editorial oversight relying on what the individual says for a quick introduction before going into the technical specifics of their work, the actual subject of the linked sources.

Again, I don't know what a good RfC question for this would be, but I think you need one. This is neither a case for waiting for protection/block to expire, nor a case that can be solved by arguing about the block itself or Eritr's motivations. What the article talk page discussion currently needs is more input from uninvolved editors, and an RfC is a good way to invite them.

(And the harm done to the article by making it not contain currently-disputed claims is minimal, also compared to placing a well-visible "disputed" sign next to their biography statements. Temporary removal is a perfectly fine and safe approach, and the content can simply be restored as soon as a consensus is found.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Your analysis seems very balanced. Eritr (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: the claim of having access to MIT's alumni database isn't inherently absurd as I wasn't saying that this specific claim was absurd. I was pointing to the absurdity of being able to use the claim that one has the access to vandalize a subject's article. or copies from the MIT Alumni database to prove their access, sharing non-public personal information that would need to be oversighted afterwards. Assuming that the concerns are valid, you're asking for something impossible That's not what I was asking; simply a mere screenshot of the alumni database indeed showing that the subject isn't in the database would have been good enough, which isn't difficult to provide at all. And further, they are still edit warring over at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni despite the item not even containing the more contentious claim of the degrees and is supported by multiple reliable sources. After all the previous WP:HOUNDING I've had to endure over the last few years, I'm sick and tired of trying to make improvements to Wikipedia only for my efforts to be punished in the same way as the vandals I'm trying to fight are. I stand by my opinion that being given the same punishment as the initial edit warring editor was unjustified, considering that I have ever only acted reactively to the vandalism. –GM 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a place for fighting, and you weren't fighting vandalism. I had sent Eritr a stern warning in response to the edit you refer to ([16]). You have now continued to "fight" in what you have already identified to be another edit war. Your rollback permission is revoked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I don't understand this. You even said that Eritr overstepped the line, and so when I saw that you hadn't reverted that change and decided to do it myself because I happened to have the rollback privilege after years of editing Wikipedia, this is considered "fighting"? I wasn't even trying to be confrontational here, I was simply doing what I believed would make Wikipedia better. –GM 21:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't understand that continuing to edit war while blocked for edit warring may perhaps be an issue? Where in the edit warring policy is an exception for reverting others who have edit warred? If you thought I have forgotten to revert something, asking for clarification wouldn't have been an option? You may be 100% right about the content issue but you can't repeatedly restore disputed content in edit wars. It's simply not an option. It is incompatible with WP:EW, WP:ONUS and to a degree WP:BLPRESTORE. Whichever related policy you look at, these things need to be discussed and reverting helps noone. I'm astonished by having to deal with edit warring performed by editors blocked for edit warring while the edit warring noticeboard report is still actively being commented on. This is highly unusually absurd. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: As I understand it, I was blocked for edit warring from a single article for two weeks, not to all articles on Wikipedia. And further, I did read the blocking policy before making that edit, and as I understand it, blocks are not supposed to be punitive. I understood this to mean that as long as I didn't touch the original article, and stayed within the boundaries of WP:3RR, that it would be fine. If this is a misinterpretation of that policy, then I apologize, but I was acting in good faith despite admittedly being frustrated by the situation. –GM 21:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

While you had indeed violated the three-revert rule in the edit war that led to this report (diff links: see list at the top) as it explicitly also applies to reverts of "different material", I thought that your position was that you had never violated WP:3RR. I didn't correct this in my response because I generally don't count reverts. An edit war is an edit war even if the reverts have been over a span of 26 hours or there have been "just" 3 reverts, whatever, it's all a form of edit warring. So up until now, to my understanding, the state of the discussion was that you're blocked for what was not a 3RR violation but still edit warring.

Either you have changed your opinion about not having violated 3RR in the meantime, or you must have been aware that a lack of a 3RR violation doesn't imply a lack of edit warring.

It is correct that the block only applies to one specific article, no other page, not even its talk page. But if someone is already partially blocked to prevent a disruptive behavior in one place, and then suddenly continues the same behavior elsewhere, then chances are that the block will be modified to be site-wide. This is because the assumption that the disruptive behavior was limited to one article has then been proven false.

Doing something in response rather than just looking at the new situation helplessly was probably my motivation behind revoking rollback, and I'm relatively open to re-granting it when all of this is over. What I didn't want to do yet seriously considered was changing the block to sitewide or the article namespace to stop this chaos for a while.

Now I see a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened and I'm thankful for that because if it's correct, that would be quite a significant discovery. Even more chaos perhaps but a step in the right direction in that case.

What a day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

(And regarding faith: I don't think either of you two is acting in bad faith. If BrocadeRiverPoems turns out to be involved in this, they would probably be the bad-faith actor here. I understand your assumption of bad faith on behalf of Eritr; it doesn't come from nowhere and we can disagree about that. That's okay. But if anything I say or did seems to have implied an assumption of you editing in bad faith, that's an incorrect impression and there was no such assumption.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: To be honest, I very rarely have had issues with edit warring, so I just assumed that WP:3RR and edit warring were interchangeable (i.e. if I haven't violated 3RR yet, then I'm not technically edit warring); I see now that this was wrong, and I apologize. I'll stay away from that topic for now, because I realized that I had found the smoking gun for the SPI, which puts all this into perspective. I think my frustration was compounded by the fact that I was blocked from an article that someone was actively making worse, and I was helpless to just watch as they did so. But now that it's clear that this person was the sock that has been hounding me for almost years, I understand that they only want me to feel that way, so I won't give them the satisfaction. I'm sorry for the drama and trouble. I hope when everything is cleared up, you'll be willing to restore my rollback privileges. –GM 23:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I will. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Meanwhile, I suggest addressing this article too: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni Eritr (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The newest messages in the discussion above and the newest message on your talk page are already about exactly that article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: So... we can agree that this person is indeed trolling, right? Edit was made 14 hours after your reply here. –GM 11:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, but we can agree that they're edit warring. And they're now blocked site-wide for a new two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Their edit still remains on the article. Should that be reverted? –GM 01:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, by which consensus? I can't find any on the talk page of the article. "Remains on the article" is an interesting description of "the disputed content is currently not present", which is fine. You continuing the edit war would not be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing the article directly, as the edit warring had continued while the report was open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Ufiaifj reported by User:Ilov3gam3z (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Wesley Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* */ removed racially biased edits that are continuously being re-added"
2. 16:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* */ Removed bias"
3. 16:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* */ removed propaganda that states he only one his campaign from financial influence. This is not a fact, it's a theory."
4. 00:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* */ Deleted racist/political propaganda"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wesley Bell."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Recurring edits to the lede */ Reply"
2. 16:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Recurring edits to the lede */ Reply"
3. 16:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Recurring edits to the lede */ Reply"
4. 16:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Recurring edits to the lede */ Reply"

Comments:

User is continuing an edit war without trying to make consensus or discuss past a edit war warning. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Also look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wesley_Bell&diff=prev&oldid=1366700619. The user in question directed a personal attack about me; which was entirely false, by the way and Ad hominem. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

See this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ufiaifj&diff=prev&oldid=1366701112. I am literally being harassed, obviously WP:NOTHERE. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Ilov3gam3z, you have edit warred as well. And I hope you have taken WP:BLPRESTORE into account, and I hope you have verified the content before restoring it and deciding to become legally responsible for the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I was not the one edit warring; I was simply stopping an editor from creating a massive edit war without seeking consensus or anything like it. As for the content itself, I am sure it is fine and even if it is not; one should try to reason in a content dispute, not revert willy-nilly as the user blocked did. And on legal responsibility, I see nothing of note that could come from this in that aspect. I also only found this through the recent changes page while patrolling. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ilov3gam3z, you have edit warred while telling others not to ([17] [18] [19]). In general, when there is a dispute about content and no clear consensus for inclusion, the content shouldn't be restored before a consensus is found (WP:VNOT for all articles, WP:BLPRESTORE additionally here). You have not "stopped" someone from edit warring, you have joined an edit war. Coming here instead of continuing was a good decision. WP:PREFER is limited to administrators when protecting pages. As long as you do not have (or do not use) the blocking or protection tools to actually stop an edit war, you can only report and/or participate. And if I see you participating in this way again, you can try that defense in an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Music, Fashion, Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zirthes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. I update the critical reception section
2. Zirthes removes one of the review aggregators from a template, which I had added before this incident, saying that it's not a reliable source
3. I found out that this aggregator was deemed "unreliable" prior to this incident and had already started a discussion about it over at WikiProject Albums, so I went to Zirthes's talk page and informed them that they might be interested in the discussion
4. I remove the content that Zirthes is disputing from the article prose, tagging them in the edit summary and gently reminding them that they forgot to remove it
5. Zirthes makes an additional edit, not only changing the formatting but removing citations (which they don't mention in the edit summary)
6. Zirthes introduces factual error (31 is the number of reviews on the aggregator THEY removed)
7. After two more tiny edits from Zirthes I'm skipping (feel free to check them), I restore and ask in the edit summary for at least a justification of the citation removals
8. Zirthes responds with a questionable interpretation of WP:CITEVAR and something about the scores that I don't even understand, while not addressing why they removed citations
9. I go back to their talk page and lay out why their edit warring doesn't make sense. I admittedly did call the sentences they were reverting to "worse" (bit heated), but I also said in very clear terms that I was going to leave all their reversions alone except the factual error they introduced and the removal of citations, which they still haven't explained.
10. I correct the factual error and put the citations back, even changing the format of the citations to how Zirthes is saying they think they should be formatted.
11. Zirthes responds on their talk page, misrepresenting basically everything I said
12. Back at the article, Zirthes removes a couple of Wikilinks and just cites WP:OVERLINK in their edit summary, leaving out any mention of the fact that this edit also removed the citations yet again
13. I respond at their talk page

For what it's worth, Zirthes then immediately went on to have a little mini-edit war with another user at the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't warn them with a template, but rather in my talk page message (see above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page diffs above

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1366707452

Comments:

Wall of text ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing I've learnt in about a year of editing this site regularly is that if you're an unregistered editor, some people with accounts WILL find an issue with your edits. You can literally revert your own changes that you think should be in the article because they clearly would want it gone but missed it, and they'll still get angry at you for daring to edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" while being "anyone" ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is highly unnecessary, and further proves your apparent naivety when it comes to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An edit war does not constitute reverting one edit - according to WP:WAR an edit war is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Reverting one edit by a user, with a clear reason given, who didn't raise any objection to this does not constitute to a "mini edit war" or an edit war at all.

In regards to your edits, your initial edit I made an adjustment to based on the consensus represented at WP:ALBUMAVOID which clearly states that "Album of the Year" is not a reliable source. After this, I cleared up the citation format you used which deviated from the established citation style in the article, which I had to repeat twice over because you submitted a conflicting edit during this process (while also tagging me for no apparent reason). You then proceeded to restore the incorrect wording of "Any Decent Music" (which should be worded as AnyDecentMusic? as generated by the template at Template:Music ratings) and the incorrect citation style which I had just corrected. After this came my first and only reversion of your exact edit giving my reason for doing so supported by the guidelines at WP:CITEVAR. You then added unnecessary references supporting the claim that the aggregate scores are weighted, despite this being already stated in the ratings template "aggregate" (which literally means a collection or sum of). I corrected this specifying MOS:OVERLINK as you also added a Wikilink to the word weighted which is not needed for the same reasons - none of these things make any difference to the understanding the reader will have of the prose. If anything, citing how Metacritic and ADM weigh their scores and Wikilinking to an irrelevant article (in this case) causes a distraction from the prose and disrupts flow.

You started a discussion almost immediately on my talk page, tagged me multiple times, and have done the most to justify your edits - and when I have tried to educate you on the correct policies and guidelines - you have blatantly ignored me. I do not have an issue with you contributing to Wikipedia, however in these instances you are clearly overlooking the facts, and are instead letting your personal bias cloud your judgement. Moreover, I have already requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to persistent disruptive edits from temporary users including yourself which is detailed over there. Zirthes (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this almost-gish-gallop-level of misrepresentation of every single point I made in my report. I just wanna point to one specific thing because I think it's a good microcosm of that fact that Zirthes here seems to have an issue with admitting they've misunderstood something:

supporting the claim that the aggregate scores are weighted, despite this being already stated in the ratings template "aggregate" (which literally means a collection or sum of).

A review aggregator's average rating is not necessarily a weighted average. The Rotten Tomatoes average rating, for example, isn't. It's literally just the actual mathematical average. Clearly, the "irrelevant" Wikipedia article about weighted averages might have helped someone's understanding after all. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you are going to report a user, try not making personal attacks towards them on their talk page as you did here [21] accusing my English language skills of not being "up to par" for editing English Wikipedia. The points I have raised are based on actual policy and guidelines that I have consistently brought up throughout this debate with you, while you have admitted yourself that you're not "pouring through all 90,000 bytes of WP:CS" which implies that you are content with including inaccurate formatting. You have also made a point of saying that I have violated WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL by referring to other album articles using the template for ADM (which you were clearly not aware even exists), however you have just brought up Rotten Tomatoes which actually is a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation, and has nothing to do with album or song articles. I'm sensing a lot of hypocrisy here.. Zirthes (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to respond to each and every point of your comment just once.

I would suggest that if you are going to report a user, try not making personal attacks towards them on their talk page as you did here [19] accusing my English language skills of not being "up to par" for editing English Wikipedia.

I implore whoever ends up looking at this mess to click on that talk page diff and read it. I have told you several times, in very plain words, why I'm including citations for Any Decent Music and Metacritic. Not only are you still not getting it, but you are telling me that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. There comes a point where the question of your ability to understand the conversations you're in needs to be asked. It's baffling because my point is so simple to understand.

while you have admitted yourself that you're not "pouring through all 90,000 bytes of WP:CS" which implies that you are content with including inaccurate formatting.

I'm almost stunned at this. This is a real "I like puppies" "So you hate kittens?" moment. Also, good job cutting out a snippet of the sentence to remove what that meant.

You have also made a point of saying that I have violated WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL by referring to other album articles using the template for ADM (which you were clearly not aware even exists)

Not only can you find countless examples of me using the ADM parameter within the edit history of this very TA, but I even posted a talk page question about that very parameter back in March 2026, which to this day no one has responded to. I just decided recently to stop using it because it displays the name of the website with an outdated stylisation that's not used in the website's text any more.

however you have just brought up Rotten Tomatoes which actually is a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation

You say we don't need to reference that Metacritic and Any Decent Music use weighted averages because all review aggregators use weighted averages, I point out that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't, and you think that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation. I'm actually speechless. I don't know how to respond to that.

The next long comment you post in which you misrepresent every single thing I say, I won't respond to. As I said, I decided I'll do it just this once. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

To be honest I don't particularly care to reply to you, however this is a report that you made about me so I have the right to argue my case. If you haven't noticed you are the one who has instigated these various discussions. My only intention was to briefly correct a disruptive edit on the Music, Fashion, Film article. Somehow that has resulted in a report being made against me as well as numerous other baseless claims and insults. Before this even happened I already requested protection to the article because of all the disruptive editing going on, which hopefully gets approved. Because this whole situation literally proves my point of what I was saying on that request. Zirthes (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the temporary account's last known TA, for historical purposes. Mike Allen 21:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Zirthes has followed me to an article's talk page to either troll or show a shocking lack of reading comprehension, showing once again that I was completely justified in questioning their English abilities ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

🥱 Zirthes (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Zirthes, you do appear to have violated the three-revert rule by reverting more than three times in 24 hours:

• [22] removing content previously in the article (inherently a revert)
• [23] removing the words "Any Decent Music gave" added one edit before ([24])
• [25] explicit undo
• [26] removing a link to "Weighted arithmetic mean" and references added one edit before ([27])

Do you understand that this is prohibited and will you not do so again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for that, it was not my intention to do so. I'm aware that it is prohibited and I will make sure to not do so again. Zirthes (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Lucasriva reported by User:Wikisadia16 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:
I've had many problems with this user when it comes to edit warring. They try their best to make sure what they want is put in the article, they never discuss anything on the talk page even after being told to, they never include an edit summary to explain their changes either. When their edit is reverted, they fail to even acknowledge the explanation as to why it was reverted and they revert the edit once again. Wikisadia16 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42239-72 reported by User:Czello (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Oswald Mosley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42239-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. as ~2026-42216-72
2. As ~2026-42135-56
3. 08:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366797986 by Czello (talk)"
4. 08:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Oswald Mosley."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is just from a 24 hour period - this has been going on for longer. — Czello ^(music) 08:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42349-34 reported by User:Adakiko (Result:Blocked)

Page: Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42349-34 (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 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) to 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
   2. 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
2. 21:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
3. 21:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
4. 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
5. 21:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Message re. Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (HG) (3.4.14)"
2. 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (HG) (3.4.14)"
3. 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "ew notice"
4. 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Doesn't like. Adakiko (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: indef by Drmies. Adakiko (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Oppufc reported by User:Fróis (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Cambodian–Spanish War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oppufc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this article only.~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

User:EarthDude reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "WP:CLEANUPTAG: A tag such as this cannot simply be placed just to declare that you disagree. You haven't even made clear what specifically is it that you are disputing"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC) to 16:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "Please stop edit warring here; POV inline is not an appropriate tag to be used here and discussion is ongoing"
   2. 16:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "Per talk"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) to 07:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 07:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "This section of the article comes from a talk page discussion already. Please stop edit warring here"
   2. 07:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "More in line with the sourcing"
4. 06:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "You were a part of that discussion. Please don't edit war here for the sake of edit warring. Jaffrelot does not counter what's given here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC) to 07:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC) on Talk:Hindutva

Comments:

This is the oddest edit war I have seen, where the editor can't even tolerate POV tags. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)