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

Drew2701

Disruptive edit warring on the Pauline Collins article (see the article history) also use of deprecated source, refusal to use BRD cycle. PatGallacher (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination, as this dispute appears to have subsided, and other Wikipedians have stepped in to defend the article in question from disruptive editing. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

User:IvanScrooge98 reported by User:~2025-32055-48 (Result: No violation Blocked 24h)

Page: Margherita Hack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Mahmood (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ivanScrooge98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]

Comments:
User:IvanScrooge98 has been edit warring in 2 different pages which are linked above, Margherita Hack and Mahmoon (singer). The edits are about the IPA of their Italian names. He modified the IPA to unsourced (as non-existent) pronunciations. In Italian, like in other Romance languages, the letter <h> is always silent and never pronounced. It may be forcedly pronounced in foreign words or names to strongly point out their foreignness. This isn't the case at all because both persons are Italians born in Italy. Margherita "Hack" has got a surname of Swiss origin, Mahmood is a stage name consisting in a pun between his name of Egyptian origin Mahmoud and the English phrase "my mood". They themselves have never pronounced their name with a /h/ sound, and no Italian talking to or about them has ever done that. You may want to check these pieces of information about Italian language in Wikipedia articles and the related sources, and about these people's name anywhere in the Internet, to confirm their correctness, please check if you like. That said, during the last months I've been trying correcting the IPA of the 2 names after User:IvanScrooge98's wrong edits, explaining in the edit summary why they were wrong and underlining that no source had been provided to prove that they were correct. In case anyone could provide a reliable source for the /h/ sound inside their names, I wouldn't any objection to its addition. But I know that no source exists because, being Italian, I well know that no one speaking Italian would even pronounce their names like that. Also consider that there're other famous Italians whose names contain the letter <h> (also excluding the digraphs "ch" and "gh") and none of them is pronounced differently from Hack or Mahmood, and that also the sounds /x/ and /θ/ may be forcedly pronounced by an Italian speaker but, unlike for example the sound /ʒ/, you won't find them in any IPA in Wikipedia: User:IvanScrooge98 is obsessed just with this 2 names for some reasons. He'll continue restoring "his" favourite IPA even if he knows that won't be able to find any source on his behalf. I'd like this to stop once for all. Let me add some other information about this user. You'll be able to verify that he's been banned indefinitely in Italian Wikipedia after a series of blocks. The context, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with IPA, but the reason is always his behaviour. Like here, where he continues making a wrong edit justifying it with "it's like this because I say so, period", also there he continued saying "I'm the one right while you, admins, are wrong and abusing your powers to act against me". Even when he was given the chance to apologise by the ArbCom. The reason for his block is "not here to build an encyclopedia". If you know Italian language or if you want to use Google Translate, you can read his Italian talk page before the block and the ArbCom deliberation in Italian Wikipedia to verify what I've said. In conclusion, I'm asking that the 2 described edits by User:IvanScrooge98 be undone because they're wrong and unsourced, and I'm asking a user like that to be stopped edit warring in such pages. ~2025-32055-48 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Italian is clear. All I’ve been undoing is vandalism. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Italian may or may not be clear but as far as I know that wikipedia article is not a reliable source.SovalValtos (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 24 hours by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, both is correct. They simply continued after the report was declined, which led to the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

User:FARDIN AHMED ABIR reported by User:United Blasters (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Star Jalsha Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: FARDIN AHMED ABIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Star Jalsha#Star Jalsha Movies"
2. 11:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Star Jalsha#Star Jalsha Movies"
3. 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 10:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Star Jalsha#Star Jalsha Movies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Continuation of conversation

The original report can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deamonpen on Evie Magazine, but the request was made at the wrong place. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, because I want it to be easier for others to follow what has happened, I repeat my postion that the version User:Snokalok and User:Grayfellare trying to revert to, without trying to talk it out on the Talk page, is this one

It is an older version (that do not include refs, agreed by everyone to be legitimate, that refer to the Evie (magazine) as conservative).

The position we started before yesterday debate was this one:

(There are slight differences, but all keep the language "conservative [sources] alt-right magazine....")

1

2

3

+me (I don't agree, but have temporarily restored before Grayfell reverted me again).

And as said, I did the initial edit of today, because no one protested my last reply on the Talk:Evie_Magazine#Proposed_Lead_Revision_for_Neutrality_and_Consistency Talk page.

I don't remove the "alt-right" materials. I add the "conservative" materials. And nobody in the Talk page protests the additions of "conservative" materials. They just have different ideas on how to put "conservative" and "altright" in the description of the magazine (first sentence). In the last message of User:Zenomonoz, they said that they agreed with my position. Deamonpen (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll just paste my original intro, Deamonpen (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly refusing to drop the stick and edit warring against consensus on Evie Magazine even when everyone in the talk page thread[9] is against him. He consistently edit wars to water down the language describing the mag in the lead from "Alt-right" to "conservative" to "An American women's magazine described as conservative" despite everyone in the thread consistently being against him and a continuation of the stronger language of the status quo (or else the strength-equivalent "Far right"). Deamonpen's justification for this in the face of everyone in the thread being against his position, is on the grounds that consensus is not determined by the number of peope who say X. It is about what arguments they bring and how the debates end.[10] All I've done is revert his disruptive edits. Snokalok (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Both Deamonpen and Snokalok have gone right up to 3rr for something they have both previously been reverted on.

This version, from a couple days ago, is described as the status quo version. The lead of the current version is pretty close to that one. The changes to the body seem mostly unrelated to this current dispute. The version Deamonpen restored has an egregious formatting error that shows that it is not stable and was apparently restored reflexively without evaluation. I'll also note that this edit summary claiming that nobody else disputes this change is flatly wrong, as is the claim that everyone agreed about the sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Described as status quo by whom? Not, since we started the debate yesterday.

I don't see [people on the Talk page] saying that "we should remove the "conservative" description (with suitable refs)", as shown above. It is you and Snokalok trying to remove the "conservative" materials without talking it out. Deamonpen (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, you yourself didn't protest the "conservative" materials - or I cannot see it in the last exchange between you and me. You just protested me inserting the long quote in the first sentence of the lede:

"Cramming a quote without any context into a note in the very first sentence both makes the article look sloppy and bad and also seems like it's edging into disruptive behavior. The cited source is not challenging or disputing the 'far-right' label in any way, and they included the 'far-right' quote for a reason. Just because a source supports 'conservatism' doesn't mean it cannot also support 'far-right', 'right wing', 'alt-right' etc. The lead should be succinct. As a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so how they choose to describe their own magazine inherently has less weight than reliable sources." (Grayfell)

And I repeat, the "conservative" sources just flat out say that Evie is conservative in their own voices. They do not quote the Evie founder or other Evie people or anything.

These are the sources referring to Evie as conservative (so it is easier for others to follow):

Cambridge

NYTimes

The Guardian

If you care about the invisible note (that you at first tried to remove yesterday) so much, why did you not restore Bluethricecreamman's version? Not that the version you reverted to is anything perfect in syntax and everything either. Not with the unreliable tag PARAKANYAA added to the Rollingstone, which is used extensively by you guys to build the article.

Deamonpen (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think I said I "agreed" with Deamonpen's position? I said I would favour 'far right' over 'alt right' because the term alt right is usually associated with atheistic far-right rather than conservative trad wife stuff that Evie does. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, probably misinterpretation on my part. Just our last exchange went like this:

>>"Personally, I think that like many other things on the right nowadays, it is a mixture of different people and one often tends to put less constraint on what the other says, so the first NYT article is also right, that the general trend is conservative, but some authors/articles can be very fringe (and they will not apologize or be dismissed, unlike what often happens in mainstream journalism, especially left-leaning parts).

But the point is that I like the exact term to be sourced (if source says far-right, then it is far-right) and reliable sources to be treated as equal. You would not like "conservative women's magazine which are described by Source X and Y as far-right/alt-right" either, right?" (Deamonpen)

>>"That's probably true."(Zenomonoz)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evie_Magazine

When you said that, I did understand that your approval also means you approved my thinking, that "far-right/alt-right women's magazine which is described as conservative" (in the lede) is unacceptable, because "conservative women's magazine which is described as far-right/alt-right" is unacceptable. I myself don't care about the far-right/alt-right part. I just want it to be reflect the sources. If some sources say conservative and some sources say far-right/alt-right, then we need a way to inform the readers of that fact, and not create a SYNTH. Deamonpen (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

regardless of Deamonpen's conduct (i haven't kept up since originally looking at this), this report is poorly formatted. its unlikely to go anywhere, and WP:ROPE is likely to be final outcome, til folks come back with more diffs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree with the removal of "conservative" sources? User:Bluethricecreamman ---Deamonpen (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Declined Either make this a formal edit-warring complaint or go back to AN/I/. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Wasn't this originally an edit warring complaint? Specifically WP:3RR? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be in a very specific format, with dated diffs showing clear reversions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and the only one who reverted three times to the same content was the one who reported. I reverted twice and after Wikieditor662's comment (perhaps misinterpreted by me), I reverted to the version as it existed before our debate (Gurkubondinn/basically YOUR version). Generally it will not help if you guys continue with "we want it to be portrayed as far right as possible", but when confronted with the reality of your faulty logic (combining "altright/far right" with "conservative", just keep totally silent. ---Deamonpen (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the one who filed the original request, but if it helps, I believe they're talking about the edits that happened on November 8th by Deamonpen and Snokalok on this page Evie Magazine: Revision history - Wikipedia. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian reader 1234567 reported by User:Zalaraz (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Hindu rate of growth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1321163332 by Chronos.Zx (talk) Please see talk page"}}
2. 14:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Economic system in India after Independence */ adding Communist"
3. 12:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Economic system in India after Independence */ I am adding source since my edit was removed communism is still every popular in India and they completely stop foreign investment"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hindu rate of growth."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Communism economics of the Indian economy */ Reply"
2. 03:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Communism economics of the Indian economy */ include indentation and reply"

Comments: Clear logged out editing in order to edit war. [11][12] [13] Zalaraz (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know I was logged out when I made a edit then after that I logged in Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the transparency and no worries. I saw it was a mistake and treated it as if you had been logged in. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-32457-57 reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

Page: Being John Malkovich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-32457-57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1321318896 by LuniZunie (talk)"
2. 22:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1321318442 by LuniZunie (talk)"
3. 22:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1321317773 by Arjayay (talk)"
4. 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1321306535 by Joyous! (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Being John Malkovich (WS)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Already blocked  for a period of 24 hours by Lofty abyss Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Revolving Doormat reported by User:Ldm1954 (Result: No violation)

Page: Abigail Polin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Revolving Doormat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and [21] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments: These were lost using the wizard, so added here by hand. The editor made a statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Polin "This was requested" which reads as they received a request to revert a draftification and/or write the article. I therefore asked, politely, on their talk page how they received the request as it suggests COI. This question was ignored and deleted. I therefore did standard WP:NPP and tagged the page for possible COI. This maintenance tag was reverted 3 times, and the question has still not been answered either on their talk page or the article talk page. I also did a little checking, and found that they had made a major deletion at Fellows of the Royal Society without discussion. I reverted that asking for them to reach concensus via the talk page. Again ignored, change reverted. While WP:DONTBITE is relevant, I have tried to be gentle and issue multiple warnings, getting nowhere. The tone of some of their comments is not very WP:5P.Ldm1954 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The two most recent reverts, to me, should count as one since they were both to the COI tag.

And beyond that, I would really recommend against placing COI tags on an article while it's up for deletion (especially when it looks like delete will carry the day). If the article isn't going to be around for very long, there's no point in putting it there. Doing so, especially repeatedly during an AfD, can look like you're trying to pile on. And the creator's COI is really not by itself a reason to delete. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:ZIKADERO reported by User:Svartner (Result: Both blocked from page 72 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

Comments:
A user with few edits is attempting to impose information that contradicts other available sources (in this case, regarding the player's height), ignoring all warnings given. He had already done this last week and did it again today. Svartner (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the page since it was a slow-motion edit war. Users still have access to the talk page (hint hint). Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Nttgip1 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Pages:

• Dhërmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Himariote dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

• Nttgip1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidently, WP:NOTHERE applies in their case. Besides the edit warring, they have also made that clear with personal attacks (diff1, diff2), for which they were also warned. In both pages, the changes are similar; essentially improperly changing the lead to state that the associated Greek minority and their language isn't really Greek, but Albanian. In some of these edits they also cited sources which lack page numbers, and appear to have been arbitrarily chosen to make their edits appear more legitimate. Besides the reported pages, they similarly disrupted Himarë (town) (diff) and Palasë (diff), which like Dhërmi, are also about settlements populated by members of the Greek minority in the Himarë region of Albania.

Previous version reverted to:

• Dhërmi: 01:00, 9 November 2025
• Himariote dialect: 01:05, 9 November 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Dhërmi

1. 01:22, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:IsCat
2. 19:03, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:Demetrios1993
3. 20:08, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:LuniZunie
4. 05:20, 10 November 2025 – reverted User:Sugar Tax

• Himariote dialect

1. 01:27, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:IsCat
2. 19:14, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:Demetrios1993
3. 19:41, 9 November 2025 – reverted User:LuniZunie
4. 19:45, 9 November 2025 – reverted ClueBot NG
5. 05:17, 10 November 2025 – reverted User:A.Cython

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 01:02, 9 November 2025
• 01:10, 9 November 2025
• 17:59, 9 November 2025
• 19:04, 9 November 2025
• 19:39, 9 November 2025 – Personal attack warning
• 19:40, 9 November 2025 – 3RR warning

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

• 09:01, 10 November 2025

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit summary accusations + redirect: CountryANDWestern (Result: Declined as malformed)

Requesting admin attention for conduct by CountryANDWestern.

On 20 Sep 2025 the editor reverted and redirected Advancing American Freedom with the edit summary “Sock,” which is an accusation of misconduct made in an edit summary rather than at SPI:

• [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1312446462&title=Advancing_American_Freedom

They were also posting to SPI around the same time, but aspersions should not appear in summaries:

• [SPI diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1312446977&title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FBiuc

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, accusations should be raised with evidence at the proper venue and not used in edit summaries. Seeking admin input on whether a warning/sanction is appropriate and whether the redirect should be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32462-30 (talk)

Not a lot to say about this. An obvious sock making the same edits as their sock brethren. SPI confirmed that they were a sock. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on Blake Butera by CountryANDWestern (Result: Stale)

• User: CountryANDWestern
• Page: Blake Butera

Diffs within ~24 hours showing repeated reverts during a breaking-news update:

• 15:09, 30 Oct 2025 — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1319558872&title=Blake_Butera
• 15:10, 30 Oct 2025 — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1319558935&title=Blake_Butera
• 16:31, 30 Oct 2025 — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1319571106&title=Blake_Butera
• 19:10, 30 Oct 2025 — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1319595297&title=Blake_Butera

Short statement: Despite valid sourcing concerns, the user repeatedly reverted the same claim during a live news cycle rather than using the talk page/consensus. This appears to meet WP:EDITWAR; requesting admin review at WP:AN3.

User talk/diff of any warnings (add if you’ve warned): — ~2025-32549-21 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that this happened on October 30. The edits in question were at the biography of a sports manager who "sources" were saying was finalizing a deal to become a team's manager. My reverts were removing edits that stated he was now the manager when it was not yet confirmed. Probably debatable if this is actually a BLP 3RR exemption since the exemption does say negative but I was acting in good faith to uphold the standards related to hirings/signings that we don't act upon "finalizing a deal" reports and we wait for official announcement of hirings/signings. (The subject in this case wasn't announced officially under the next day). CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Declined Stale at this point. Blocks are not punitive, and there is nothing that could be accomplished as far as protecting the encyclopedia at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Chain fountain (Result: Page protected)

User:User:~2025-32638-75, User:~2025-32247-12

Article: chain fountain

User keeps removing referenced content in chain fountain article. No rationale given. See contributions. ReyHahn (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. When making reports here in the future, please use the correct format as it makes it easier for us to review (see worse examples elsewhere on this page). Also, consider actually warning editors who do this sort of thing—as I often say when declining reports at RFPP, I can't blame vandals or editors like this for continuing to do what they've been doing when they haven't the faintest clue that it's not wanted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:ABCD0106 reported by User:Aaaas216& (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Battle of Sylhet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Battle of Hilli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ABCD0106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Added Proper Citation to Battle of Sylhet and corrected the result vandalized by a miscreant"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC) to 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 06:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "The Battle Of Sylhet was solely fought by Indian Soldiers. Some miscreants are making mischief on Result. I humbly request Wikipedia administrators to take care of."
   2. 06:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Added a Citation to Battle Of Sylhet"
   4. [23]
   5. [24]
   6. [25]
   7. [26]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Sylhet."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constantly changing results without any discussions or consultation, this user has been ongoing edit warring with Bangladesh Liberation War topics and giving citations from Indian news articles that has no proper basis. This user also vandalizing other articles as [27], [28], [29], [30] even when Synorem warned not to. Aaaas216& (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours since the articles are within a contentious topic area and the editor has been alerted to this. I will also be putting the two articles under indef ECP since merely asking people nicely to respect ECR is not working. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-32579-60 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Seventh-day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-32579-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple temporary accounts and Gregorydpark2020 are edit warring. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I only had one temporary accounts on mistake because wiki logs off. And tgeorgescu should be band he is says I am unkind or ask for kind and he isn't kind. I am just stating the SDA Church is very unsure of the day observe when the article states 7th day on Gregorian Calendar. Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't talk in legal. I only createtd or used one temp acct. May wiki take you down for the s or plural insinu8atrion Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Take your sermon elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

you are being an untrue sermon when you didn't deal with your own legal mistake. Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Just say I had one temp acct and I wil let you etertainment controol wiki. I believe is sermons not entertainment. Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

By having my facts of this church does it help the SDA Church and the SDA Church is so screwed up that it will fall with this wiki error. And the local church has been notified a lot. Have I done my do diligence to tgeorge..? Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

So you believe your wanted version of the SDA page is the more correct? Check the day of the week of thes Gregorian Calendar and the statement. Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me have my change so God can give me $2.04 Trillion dollars. I am depending on disability. And I hate the SDA Churches hate toward gay me. Gregorydpark2020 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected But the post immediately above makes me think that a block is needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have no idea what the above comments are supposed to be; they read like schizophasia to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)