Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive502

User:ThehouseofStuart reported by User:ScrabbleTiles (Result: Blocked)

Page: Duke of Aquitaine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "must post reliable source if you’re making changes"
2. 17:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "vandalism"
3. 17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "edit was done without adding any new information to back up editing reverting back to historically accurate content"
4. 17:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "making a correction other user made a historically inaccurate and uneducated edit without signing proper documentation as to why edit is factual should probably look at some more historic references. Also the Vatican if they’re going to try to make another edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 19:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

Comments:

This user is consistently removing sourced information, and then replacing it with unsourced information after being warned multiple times by multiple editors (twinkle hasn’t picked up on all of the warnings for the report). Clear refusal to listen and doesn’t seem to be getting the point. This is not the only page that they have been repeatedly re-adding unsourced content to after it has been reverted by other editors. It’s also tricky to assume good faith after this [2]. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Choess and @Somepinkdude ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring to make unsourced changes. User does not seem to understand Wikipedia's referencing standards. He apparently intends to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Thoukodran reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Madvi Hidma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
2. 13:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
3. 13:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
4. 13:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Red corridor (level 1) (WS)"
2. 13:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Red corridor (level 2) (WS)"
3. 13:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Red corridor (WS)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring across multiple articles, based on all of the edit summaries, it seems as if this may not be their first / only account. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 13:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello LuniZunie, if there are more, please report them at WP:SPI! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Mornin999 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Huang Xianfan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mornin999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Restoring the version protected for one year by Daniel Case. The claim of “no consensus to restore” is incorrect — consensus is required before removing stable, sourced, and protection-validated content, not before restoring it. Per WP:BRD and the active protection, unilateral blanking is not permitted."
2. 07:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Hard-reverting removal of protected, sourced content. The page is under a 1-year protection; ignoring protection and repeatedly blanking sourced material violates WP:ARB, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:CONSENSUS. Please stop disruptive reverts and use the talk page."
3. 20:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Restoring sourced content. Personal “lack of faith” is not a policy-based reason for removal, and no specific text–source issue has ever been identified. Reliable, cited material should not be replaced with blanking absent concrete, verifiable objections."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Huang Xianfan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Huang Xianfan "/* Article status */"

Comments:

The user had to keep it in the talk page, but decided to revert. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• As a bit of background, see meta:User:Kleuske/Huang Xianfan. There is a network of contributors very interested in writing non-neutral articles on this topic and translating it everywhere. (Theoretically a separate issue from the edit warring, of course, but still relevant.) SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh actually, Tbhotch, SnowFire, that's a sockpuppet of Astrid-AK. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:MariCro2019 reported by User:DalidaEditor (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Venetian Dalmatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MariCro2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Attempt to resolve dispute on user’s talk page: User talk:MariCro2019#Argumentation

Comments: The manner of speaking and the arguments used are an blatant word play, as if the explanation were for children, rather than an effort to make an encyclopedic article. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:NotJamestack reported by User:Ryuudou (Result: Page already protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10] "From here on out, I am invoking WP:IAR ... Once again, WP:IAR"
2. [11] "We are both very close to breaking 3RR. You need to cut this out"
3. [12] "No. Your edit removed well cited content. Just stop. Don't revert this. Stop."
4. [13] "To readd cited text related to slavery."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

Edit warring to insert disputed content without consensus. Not only is he citing IAR after being warned about edit warring, but he keeps repeating bad faith allegations and personal attacks in his edit summaries. His comment implies he intends to keep reverting without consensus. He has a battleground attitude. Ryuudou (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected already ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-35993-43 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Underlying range blocked from article for 24 hours)

Page: Retro (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: ~2025-35993-43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36004-49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36037-48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-35927-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-34050-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP editor objects to the infobox showing the box office as est. ₹80−250 crore, and would prefer est. ₹110−250 crore. Usually he/she deletes the citation that supports ₹80 crore

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:18, 16 November 2025 change data added by Tonyy Starkk
2. 19:58, 23 November 2025 revert ~2025-35863-90
3. 22:08, 23 November 2025 revert Arjayay
4. 00:44, 24 November 2025 revert Toddy1
5. 11:36, 24 November 2025 revert Toddy1
6. 18:21, 25 November 2025 revert ~2025-35863-90

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Retro (film)#The New Indian Express article. There was a discussion of the box office range in August 2025 at Talk:Retro (film)#Box Office Range – Economic Times Reference, and a follow on discussion at Talk:Retro (film)#Box office addition

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments:
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The underlying IP range, from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

User:אקעגן reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Declined for insufficient notice)

Page: Portal:Current events/2025 November 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "This is actually what the source says"
2. 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Source doesn't say this"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of 1RR under WP:PIA. Previously sanctioned in the topic area. XYZ1233212 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. אקעגן, a comment please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I made different edits in those cases, the latter was not a revert, but an elucidation. I did not remove the disputed sentence the second time. I would argue that my second edit did not change the content back to a previous state. אקעגן (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Declined The edit window on the page has no 1RR notice. Maybe it should, but if you weren't advised you were violating policy before you violated it, it's really not right that you be blocked for the violation. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, while I'm fine with the decline and would probably also have closed this without action – just for the nitpicking sake of completeness – topic-wide restrictions apply even if there is no editnotice about them, which is especially the case when material from such an area is added to a page with a different main topic. אקעגן had been notified about the restriction and had previously been blocked for violating another restriction in the area. אקעגן, please be careful there. You did remove the word "most" twice after it had been added, performing two (partial) reverts, independently of whether you also added something in its place. But you have a point and treating this with a block would be completely overkill. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I figured after writing this that if the user had been made aware of the topic restriction previously, that wouldn't matter. I really do wish that when people report things like this, they make it clear that the reported user should know. Because it can't be deduced from the article history. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it, and I'll be certainly more careful. אקעגן (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-36593-34 and multiple newly created similar users, reported by User:Toto11zi (Result: Page protected)

Page: Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2025-36593-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36651-14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36515-56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36602-29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2025-36502-97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] User has no user page.

Comments:

@Toto11zi:, these are Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. They are used now to record edits by anonymous editors, instead of IP addresses. All temporary accounts start with ~2025. --tony 00:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Jeanie0945 reported by User:Brat Forelli (Result: Declined – invalid report)

Page: Silesian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeanie0945 (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:

The Silesian language page has a 1 revert rule. Prior to the user's second revert, I addressed the concerns with his editing on my talk page ([33]), and on talk page [34].

• Declined. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions:
  Breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:
  The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic (...)
  User:Brat Forelli, please welcome the user, then use {{subst:alert/first|ee}}, warn them about edit warring and if it then continues, you're on the right noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  My bad. Thank you. Brat Forelli🦊 21:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  No problem ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:750h+ reported by User:Israell (Result: Defer to talk page)

Page: Rihanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 750h+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41] EDIT: Disruptive edit made without any prior discussion barely outside of the 24-hour window.
7. [42] EDIT 2: That user is now reverting my OWN edits on this noticeboard.
8. [43] EDIT 3: That user has now once again removed the "songwriter" occupation (that another used added back) without any clear consensus to remove it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] They removed the warning: [45]

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

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

Comments:

EDIT: That same disruptive user has now removed[48] "actress" from both the lede and infobox of the same article without any prior discussion even though four movie roles by Rihanna are mentioned in the lede... Israell (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A new argument formed out of thin air I see. I removed it because YOU said that she is not mainly known for being an actress (see talk page). I genuinely cannot be bothered to deal with this. Administrators, if anything actually important is brought up, please ping me. 750h+ 17:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I then said in the following sentence: "Her eight movie credits suffice." I never argued for "actress" to be removed. Israell (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The main thing is that she is not mainly known as an actress. If she is not mainly known as something then it should not be in the lead/infobox. 750h+ 01:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The "songwriter" occupation has been part of the infobox for many years.[49][50][51] That user is the only one who keeps removing it; they removed it last September with no prior discussion.[52] They've now even removed my attempt to expand the article to elaborate on Rihanna's songwriting.[53] They are therefore attempting to prevent me, a long-time editor, to contribute to the article with valid sources. Besides, they are now admittedly only pinging three users that they know may vote the way that they want.[54] Isn't this canvassing? How is this correct and fair? That editor seems opposed to ANY mention of Rihanna's songwriting (a verifiable fact) anywhere in the article, thus depriving readers of that information. I reasonably suspect POV-pushing from that user. Israell (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm NOT the only one who keeps removing it, this user Israell has been arguing with users SINCE 2024 over whether "songwriter" should stay in the infobox. THIS editor is quite literally the only editor I know who agrees that the "songwriter" part should be included. From what I've seen, me, alongside I believe 4-5 other editors have expressed disagreement with this user's edits because we believe that she is not a known songwriter (reasons in the article talk page), yet this one editor is trying to push this narrative that she is. 750h+ 13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

As evidence by the Rihanna article's history, that user is indeed the only one who keeps removing that occupation—without any prior discussion, without any clear consensus to remove it. The vast majority of editors have absolutely no issue with it. It had actually been part of the infobox for ten years. Besides, the article in question did mention Rihanna's collaborative songwriting, and that same user removed it without any prior discussion last July.[55]

And they are now attempting to prevent me from mentioning that artist's songwriting craft in the Artistry section of the article just so they can keep saying that if the body of the article doesn't mention it, the infobox cannot mention it either... Rihanna has 152 songwriting credits, wrote many successful songs (different charts, worldwide) for herself and others, and the Academy Awards recognized her music composition work on Lift Me Up (Rihanna song), but that user is opposed to any mention of her songwriting occupation anywhere in the article. Note: This is not the place to debate this. This is about the user edit-warring on different elements of the article even after I issued him an edit war notice. Israell (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Israell, this revision is before I ever edited the article. Tell me WHERE it makes ANY mention of her songwriting, but in the infobox you are repeatedly trying to add back, and quickly. I do not care about if she has 2 songwriting credits or 2 trillion. if many sources don't mention her being a songwriter then we can't include it in the article. Find multiple reliable sources that explain her songwriting process. Then, we can determine if she is a songwriter. Anyway, as you said this discussion should be continued on her talk page. Best, 750h+ 14:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This revision mentions: 1. Rihanna's songwriting in the 2018–present: Hiatus, upcoming ninth studio album and Super Bowl LVII halftime show section that you removed last July. 2. Rihanna is listed as a songwriter in the infobox. 3. The bottom part of the article, in the Grammy Award for Best Melodic Rap Performance (2010s section), mentions Rihanna's songwriting work on Run This Town, a hugely successful song that sold millions of units, reached number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, number 1 on four other charts, and won two Grammys and a People's Choice Award. It also mentions The Monster (song) and Loyalty (Kendrick Lamar song), two other Grammy Award-winning songs co-written by Rihanna. And I've already provided evidence that the article listed Rihanna as a songwriter as early as 2015, before (from what I recall) I ever edited it. Israell (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Where in the 2018–present: Hiatus, upcoming ninth studio album and Super Bowl LVII halftime show section, which I apparently removed last July (and I’m confused as to why you’re repeatedly saying “last July” when this was the July that was 5 months ago 2. Which is what we are talking about so I don’t think that’s a good argument. 3. Three ‘hugely’ successful songs does not make her a songwriter. Find reliable sources stating how she works as a songwriter. If she is a actually a songwriter it should not be this hard. Best, 750h+ 15:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That section that you removed[56] last July mentions Rihanna having co-songwriters! This is NOT the place to keep debating this. On the talk page of the article, I mentioned other songs that were huge hits for her that she wrote. Whether or not you personally consider Rihanna a songwriter is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability; Rihanna is factually a songwriter, and it is well-documented. Please stop pushing your viewpoint in such disruptive manner. Israell (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And that does not make her a songwriter, period. How many times am I going to say this? Find reliable sources that state her ability as a songwriter. Good god, if she’s actually a songwriter, it should not be this hard. I don’t want to hear “well-documented” if the only person pushing this songwriter narrative cannot find many RS that document her songwriting ability. 750h+ 19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop litigating content issues here. This is a conduct (specifically edit-warring) noticeboard. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine, we’ll be continuing article-related discussions at the talk page. 750h+ 19:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Deferred to talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Neonmen1 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: 48 hours)

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

User being reported: Neonmen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 16:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC) "casteist has no place on social group section ...mind it carefully"
4. 09:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC) "Please Put ethnic data and race data information..do not put Caste data on social group ..."
5. 05:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Please Be Respectful regarding caste divide ...It is disrectful to divide people on Rajput bhramin"
6. 18:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC) " "
7. 10:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC) "Claim that majority of Uttrarkhand people are rajput is over exaggerated...historical records furthur state that by late 19-20th century the Rajputisation of majority native people happened ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC) Warning: Vandalism on Uttarakhand.
2. 12:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Uttarakhand."
3. 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC) "Comment"
4. 10:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Uttarakhand."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC) "/* November 2025 */ new section"

Comments:

Keeps removing longstanding sourced content on socio-politics without seeking consensus in the talk page despite multiple warnings, expanation and requests in the edit summaries, the user's talk page and the article talk page. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/removal of content started on 15 November 2025, followed by slow-burn edit warring possibly to game the system. I've added those diffs and warnings.- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Broke 3RR [57] and apparently interested in 'race' as can be seen in the added content and this edit summariy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours and prompted them to review the CTOP notice that has been provided to them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-35694-94 reported by User:Jabba550 (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: ~2025-35694-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1323921177 by Nmacpherson (talk)"
2. 14:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1323919675 by Jabba550 (talk)"
3. 14:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1323919552 by CabinetCavers (talk)"
4. 14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 14:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Grinch."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As well as edit warring the content being added is vandalism and user has also repeatedly told users warning them to stop to "shut up" and "stop and go away" Jabba550 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV and/or WP:RFPP may be more appropriate. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Historyhunter867 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Sajid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Historyhunter867 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [63]

Comments:
Brand new user edit warring, removing high quality sourced info, disregarding WP:GSAA [64] and making personal attacks [65]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-37228-18 reported by User:Sugar Tax (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Gamera vs. Jiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-37228-18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324675472 by Plasticwonder (talk) Jiger is not a male! Stop putting fake information back!"
2. 00:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324675319 by Sugar Tax (talk) Leave it!"
3. 00:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324674994 by Sugar Tax (talk)"
4. 00:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324673828 by Sugar Tax (talk)"
5. 00:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 00:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gamera vs. Jiger."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• This editor has already been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Animelover96 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result:Blocked indefinitely (checkuserblock-account) )

Page: Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Animelover96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]
7. [73]
8. [74]
9. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]

Comments:
It looks like an anonymous editor is continuing the edit war. It's possible this editor is editing while logged out or socking: [78]

Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User:13 DG 13, User:Danopt, User:Mendes082013 and ~2025-36856-64 reported by User:Games30Top (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Edit warring over Aximage/Folha Nacional poll (2026 Portuguese presidential polling)

• Page: Opinion polling for the 2026 Portuguese presidential election
• Users reported: User:13 DG 13, User:Danopt, User:Mendes082013, ~2025-36856-64
• Disputed content: Inclusion/removal of the Aximage poll commissioned by Folha Nacional in the "First round" table (Ventura leading). Example of the sourced version: diff

13 DG 13

1. 19 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll as "a fake pool that doesn't exist": diff
2. 27 Nov 2025 – again removes the same poll, calling it "not real" and "a fake poll that the supports of Ventura are making up": diff

Danopt

1. 18 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll (manual revert): diff
2. 27 Nov 2025 – removes the same poll again: diff
3. 27 Nov 2025 – keeps the poll removed, with edit summary "The source is not valid because the official party body will accept any other source if it presents it": diff

Mendes082013

1. 27 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll, arguing that because ERC has not yet deposited it and it was first published in the party newspaper it "could be fake or fabricated": diff

~2025-36856-64

1. 27 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll with the edit summary "Opinion polling is not credible": diff

• Comments: I (Games30Top) am involved; I have repeatedly restored the Aximage/Folha Nacional poll because it is a sourced poll by Aximage (a pollster already used elsewhere in the article). Opposing editors are repeatedly removing the same sourced poll as "fake" or "not credible" without any source showing fabrication, and are doing this instead of using the talk page. I have now stopped editing the article on this point and am seeking administrator input on how to handle this dispute.

Games30Top (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. I count 6 reverts for Games30Top, 2 reverts for Danopt, and 1 revert for the rest. Wikipedia:Consensus is clearly against Games30Top. I also find it weird that this user's only edits are on this page (and they started editing today), and that they already know how to 3RR report (sorta). It is also interesting that H3nrique Bregie made the same edit prior. I do not accuse anybody of anything, but this behavior should be noted. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The consensus had been that the poll was to be added after it was submitted to the ERC official website. When I saw the poll added to the page again I thought it had already been submitted, and just added the remaining data of the poll. That was my mistake, I didn't check the source. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@H3nrique Bregie Makes sense! I assumed this was just a coincidence, but always best to at least mention. Happy editing =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Games30Top, if everyone seems to be driving into the wrong direction, you might be on the wrong lane. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)