Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress)
Latest comment: 16 minutes ago by Erecorar in topic User:Hanum143 reported by User:Erecorar (Result: )

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Tito Omburo reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Stale)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

    Page: The Birth of a Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tito Omburo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1] (August 15)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. [2] (August 15)
    2. [3] (August 15)

    • I solicited third party input from the Film project: [4]
    • Darkwarriorblake and Tompadompa joined the discussion on the talk page. The discussion eventually arrived at unanimous consensus i.e. Darkwarriorblake, Tompadompa, Tito Omburo and myself: [5]. The agreed text (proposal #3) was installed in the article: [6]
    • Another editor called Ladtrack joined the discussion and made some sensible suggestions: [7]
    • After making headway it seemed like it was all winding down, and then it all kicked off again as Tito Omburo unilaterally re-wrote the lead: [8] (August 19)

    3. [9] (this description was explicitly removed by proposal #3)

    • Tito then started an RFC, to effectively challenge proposal #3 which he agreed to on the talk page: [10]
    • At this point, it would have been wise to leave the lead alone, but instead he added back the white supremacist text with the gross mischaracterisation that I had agreed to it: [11]:

    4. [12] (this was directly after I had explained that I had REMOVED the text because proposal #3—which we had all agreed to—had removed it)
    5. [13]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See descriptions above which link to relevant parts of the discussion

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    There was a disagreement, followed by a discussion, followed by a consensus that we all agreed on (including Tito Omburo). Once the new text was installed he unilaterally re-wrote the lead!! This is not how "consensus" works. He then starts an RFC to challenge the newly agree wording which is a massive waste of time and community resources because we had a discussion involving several editors and agreed to the wording. Parallel to this he is now edit-warring a description of the Ku Klux Klan into the article that was explicitly taken out by proposal #3, and is also not present in any of the RFC alternatives. He is an extremely uncollaborative editor and WP:NOTHERE IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I'm not sure why you're determined to have someone block me, and I note that this is cop behavior. Very unseemly. In any case this diff may invite some useful speculation as to your motives. My advice is that you walk away from this article. There are now other editors present with cooler heads who seem to assume good faith in others. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Tito Omburo, I am certain that you are not helping your case by making this kind of thinly-veiled accusations. Also not helping your case is that you were blocked a month ago for edit warring on a different article. I implore you to engage in some self-reflection here rather than carrying on. TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Tito Omburo is making an insinuation about my so-called motives regarding the above revert. Please note that it was ME who originally added this text. Tito is aware of this, but is attempting to paint my actions in a negative light. This text was removed after the discussion achieved unanimous consensus i.e. we all agreed—including Tito—to a version that did not include this text. The revert simply restored the version we had all agreed on. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Having been summoned by bot to the RfC mentioned above, it was immediately clear the RfC was fishy, which I explained at the RfC. I saw what looked like edit-warring on the article during August 2025 ([16]), and I restored the article to a previous long-standing stable version. That edit has held for now.
    Since then, I have researched and confirmed some of the behavior described above and at the RfC by Betty Logan and TompaDompa, particularly the creation of the highly questionable RfC by Tito Omburo that was designed to undermine a consensus agreed to by a number of editors--including Tito Omburo. Explained here at the RfC.
    IMHO, given that Tito has not continued edit-war since then, I believe if Tito admit to the disruptive behavior and agrees not to continue it, and receives an appropriate warning from an admin, I don't believe a block, topic ban, or similar sanction is necessary at this point. But if there is no acknowledgement and the behavior continues, a sanction may be necessary to protect the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Wikipedia seems to be populated entirely, especially in certain areas, by white people. I don't know what to say about this, but please be aware: in some areas, especially considering the lived experiences of those not like you, you are in an echo chamber. This is unhealthy for the encyclopedia, and leads to distortions of the neutral point of view policy. Of course, we think, sources written by white people, in English, are neutral, regardless of their provenance. Sources written by Blacks are a minority report (if they are mentioned at all), even if published in peer reviewed journals. If you feel attacked by this, please reconsider your approach to the neutral point of view: it's not about who has the greatest numbers on their side, but which sources are genuinely better, and I encourage you to read the sources in the article. If you do not feel attacked by this, the only specialist WikiProject I was able to notify (after some searching) relevant to this article is the largely moribund project [17], and I welcome a greater sounding. Even if you dislike people like me (schizophrenic - I would), at least I can see prejudice in plain sight. I fly off the handle periodically. But I'm often right when I do so. I will not back down or apologize: Betty Logan is in the wrong here. The status quo is objectively wrong. Please read the sources I have cited in the RfC, and then disagree with me in a constructive manner. (Discovered Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which makes precisely these points, even if it's probably on the chopping block these days.) Tito Omburo (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • You seem adamant that content-wise, you are in the right. Be that as it may, that's not what this report (or indeed, this noticeboard) is about—it's about conduct. I put it to you that you are, conduct-wise, very clearly in the wrong and that an apology is entirely in order. You have already said I will not back down or apologize, so I'll give you an opportunity to reconsider that position as it relates to your conduct. If you keep up this kind of behaviour, you are liable to end up with a long-term sanction (be it an WP:Indefinite block, a year-long WP:Topic ban, or something else) before too long. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • I agree with TompaDompa, whose response is almost identical to what I had planned to say. Although I do appreciate your response at the RfC, which I have had not had time to review carefully yet, these allegations lacking evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. Your response to me is a distraction from the problems with YOUR behavior of violating process.
    I haven't reviewed your long-term behavior here, but I have seen other warnings for similar behavior in the past on your talk page, e.g. [18]. Disputes over content are common in Wikipedia, and it is not unusual for editors to feel, just like you, that they are 100% correct and everyone who disagrees are wrong. If all involved feel they are right, how does the dispute get resolved? Wikipedia was created knowing that the impossibilities of articulating or seeking objective WP:TRUTH (WP:True)--a problem philosophers have struggled with even before the Ancient Greeks. As I am sure you know, Wikipedia relies on representing what is in reliable sources. But editors often disagree on how best to represent what they have read in the reliable sources, disagree which sources are the most reliable, which views deserve the most emphasis, etc. To resolve the disagreements, Wikipedia uses a process to seek WP:consensus--one that is no doubt imperfect and can create content that ultimately is not accurate and/or has WP:Systemic bias. We all know that the majority can be wrong, and those in the majority can be less informed than those in the minority. Regardless, this is the process for how disagreements on content are handled, and you violated that process.
    If you want to keep editing here, you'll have to agree to follow the process, even if it means allowing content you strongly believe is "objectively wrong." If it is wrong, you'll have to convince other editors and form a consensus at the article. Edit-warring will get you sanctioned. Arguing about content at a behavior board like this doesn't help. Creating a flawed RfC doesn't help. And neither do the allegations. I spend this time explaining, because I think you are a valuable, intelligent editor, who has likely made important contributions, and like others, I don't want to lose you.
    I also don't think the changes you prefer to the first paragraph of the article as "objectively wrong" any more than the versions the other editors proposed. Experts can spend a life-time reviewing the reliable sources on a subject and still disagree on what the latest most valuable research has agreed on as the current most accurate view(s) on the subject. So, I see his as a subjective disagreement that can only be resolved by following the process of finding consensus. If you can agree to do that, you can avoid sanctions. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Declined as stale. The edit war died down five days ago, and the RfC is still open. This report, as happens too frequently, soon turned into just an extension of the talk page. I suggest everyone devote their energies to the RfC and maybe getting someone to close it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Newinwiki8 reported by User:Woodroar (Result: Already blocked)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Kocaeli Health and Technology University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Newinwiki8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    For the past month, Newinwiki8 has been edit warring to add/restore unsourced and poorly-sourced claims to the article on Kocaeli Health and Technology University, including claims regarding living persons. These edits have been reverted by multiple editors. The editor has escalated the edit warring today, including logging out and logging in (to avoid protection), and has passed 3RR.

    Here are edits over the past month, leading up to today:

    These are just today:

    Newinwiki8 had previously been warned about logging in and out in this discussion.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning. User was previously warned about edit warning (in a different context) here.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion

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

    Comments:
    Newinwiki8 has since been checkuser blocked. I suppose this can be closed now, unless anything more needs to be done? Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

      Already blocked indef by ToBeFree, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Timthemanofficial reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks, reporter partially blocked 2 weeks)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Page: Dutch phonology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Timthemanofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_phonology&diff=prev&oldid=1307491440

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

    Comments:
    Kept removing sourced info and material, and used their own personal experience as a "source".

    2600:4808:4892:7600:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Page: Robert M. La Follette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:4808:4892:7600:A367:3D03:5E9D:DCAF/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307504949 by TonySt (talk) TonySt, I understand your point, but I think he's my favorite politician. Can you please be kind to me and keep me the positive language to honor him on Wikipedia. I won't edit war if you let my version be. Thank you."
    2. 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307335779 by Lynch44 (talk)Please. The page should explain him positively and honestly, and he needs to be honored."
    3. 2025-08-23T01:32:20Z
    4. 2025-08-23T01:29:59Z
    5. 2025-08-23T01:28:59Z
    6. 2025-08-23T01:27:04Z

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 2025-08-23T01:31:59Z
    2. 01:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robert M. La Follette."
    3. 01:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "/* August 2025 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User has been reverting to their preferred version for several days despite reversions and 3RR/vandalism warnings by four recent changes patrolling users (see the /64), plus myself. tony 01:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I've requested temporary page protection due to persistent disruptive editing. 20m00 🗩 02:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hi TonySt and 20m00, the IP address (/64) seems to be stable enough to try blocking without protecting the page for now. If this continues during the next 2 weeks, that would be freely revertable block evasion and I'd be happy about a notification on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Seems fair. Thank you. 20m00 🗩 02:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Bikram96 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Page protected)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

    Page: File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Bikram96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
    2. 10:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
    3. 10:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 reverted File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg to an old version"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 10:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 uploaded a new version of File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg"
      2. 10:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Bikram96 uploaded a new version of File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg"
      3. 10:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Please stop uploading a non-Indian poster to an Indian film, when we have a high quality local version available. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This poster was seen across Hyderabad. Hyderabad is in India. Bikram96 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What's the problem with current poster? It looks good. Bikram96 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, you reported about Coolie (2025 film). Now at here you are reporting about File:Coolie (2025 film) poster.jpg. Bikram96 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The problem is that it is faked. Search this poster using Google Lens, and you will see the actual poster is something else, which was then edited before uploading to IMDb. Moreover, IMDb is not always reliable as users can upload fake/edited posters. The existing poster was taken from Chennai Times. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You can see this poster in Hyderabad. This is a portrait poster. Actually landscape posters are seen infront of almost all theatres in Hyderabad. The same way this poster is also seen across Malaysia. Bikram96 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Now that Bikram96 has agreed to spare the older version, I request admins that this discussion between closed and Bikram vindicated. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mohammad Handura reported by User:Tenshi Hinanawi (Result: Blocked)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments1 person in discussion

    Page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307596801 by EditorShane3456 (talk)"
    2. 15:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307595892 by Robert McClenon (talk) 3rr warning"
    3. 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307594053 by EditorShane3456 (talk) reform the notice instead of blanking"
    4. 15:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307586169 by Robert McClenon (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Mohammad Handura "/* August 2025 */ explanation"

    Comments:

    User:Wrestlefix reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Money in the Bank (2023) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307634138 by 177.245.204.88 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 19:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622142 by Originalchampion (talk)"
      2. 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622308 by Originalchampion (talk)"
      3. 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307622032 by Originalchampion (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) to 18:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619767 by Originalchampion (talk)"
      2. 18:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619713 by Originalchampion (talk)"
    4. 18:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307619175 by 177.245.204.88 (talk)"
    5. 17:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306234869 by Originalchampion (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Money in the Bank (2023)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "/* User:Wrestlefix */ new section"

    Comments:

    Wrestlefix continues to remove a reliable source such as f4wonline. It is considered as a reliable source. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Simonm223 reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: Duplicate report)

    edit
    Latest comment: 20 hours ago8 comments5 people in discussion

    Page: Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Simonm223 (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: [link]

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

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

    Comments:
    User is actively edit warring an oigoing RFC because consensus in building in a direction they oppose. They are collapsing other editors votes and moving votes that are opposite theirs. Please block for 30 days to allow the rfc to function properly Slacker13 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Duplicate of below. Same comment. This report is absurd. I have not done any reversions on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Slacker13 You should use the preview button and check what your post will look like. Check your report again, it's extremely unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Again, this is my technical inexperience here. I did use the preview button.
    And then when Simonm223 mentioned it wasn't him -- I tried to go into the source code to delete these two notices. Slacker13 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is there a way to formally retract this? Slacker13 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And you saw the "Diffs of the user's reverts:" section and thought "Yep, that looks fine!"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Since this is both a broken report and the original poster is asking how to retract it, should we just remove this section, hat it, or wait and let an admin handle it?
    Fairly sure that nobody would consider any of that controversial MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've marked this report as a duplicate. The other report has been withdrawn by the filer. — Newslinger talk 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Simonm223 reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: withdrawn)

    edit
    Latest comment: 22 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Zak Smith:Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Simonm223: Simonm223 (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: [link]

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

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

    Comments:
    Apologies is this is a duplicate as I didn't see it listed. USer is actively collapsing other editors comments curing an active RFC, particularly those that are opposed to their vote Slacker13 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This misformatted report is also entirely spurious. I have not even done one revert on the article talk page in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Correct. it wasn't you. Is there a way to formally retract this? Slacker13 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Done. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Blahwikiblah reported by User:Nswix (Result: )

    edit
    Latest comment: 23 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Page: Mike Perry (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "The term triad combat record is not even a known or recognized fight sport record. There is no factual basis for that record designation. The bout is listed as HYBRID PROFESSIONAL. Triad was the promotional event. There is no factual evidence in the record database even labeled “triad combat record”. It’s completely inaccurate and false information"
    2. 00:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "This is against the previous format of all misfits professional bouts ect.. where the special rules/differences are recorded in the notes. See Logan Paul or KSI boxing records for reference"
    3. 15:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC) "It’s listed on Boxrec as a Hybrid PROFESSIONAL bout. Just as some are listed as Misfits Professional bouts ect.. the fight is a professional bout and the modifications Hybrid/Misfits ect.. are located in the notes if it’s anything other than a standard pro bout"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mike Perry (fighter)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Cites BoxRec (wiki's boxing record source) as saying it's a professional bout, when it clearly shows he's 0-2 as a pro and the Triad bout they keep moving, is in its own separate category. It also shows his bareknuckle record in its own category, which is reflected here on wiki as well. Nswix (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:92.113.42.181 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks, blocked 2 days)

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Prostitution in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.113.42.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 11:34, 25 August 2025 First edits by anon

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:24, 25 August 2025 I have clearly explained. see the talk page.
    2. 21:16, 25 August 2025 I have argued in the talk page LONG before. but no one is answering me and the other party without even enterering the talk page reverts me with no explanation many times. I have explained every act I maid many times including in the talk. so I am not edit waring. the party that does no explain and enters talk and reverts does. thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prostitution_in_Iran#Unreferenced_statements
    3. 21:03, 25 August 2025 You haven’t even answered me on the talk page. This is obviously edit warring and ignoring Wikipedia’s guidelines
    4. 20:56, 25 August 2025 Rv of unreferenced statements. For instance: "Leather boots are widely used..." — This statement, which is in the introduction, has 3 refs. and the image is based on it — except that all are Persian and non-English, none of the info has even mentioned the statements and have nothing about boots. All of the info removed are unreferenced or poorly referenced like this. Go to the talk page for more info and examples.
    5. 20:25, 25 August 2025 The information that was removed was either unsupported by references, or the references provided were unreliable. In most cases, the information had no references at all, or the references did not back up the claims made. According to Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, all content should be verifiable and based on credible references. If you're not convinced, I suggest we discuss this further in line with Wikipedia's guidelines rather than edit waring. Thank you.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:59, 25 August 2025 Note additional comments on talk page: User talk:92.113.42.181#Edit warring notice

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Prostitution in Iran#Unreferenced statements seems more like wp:DIDNTHEARTHAT

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 21:45, 25 August 2025

    Comments:

    Anon appears to be whitewashing prostitution in Islam related articles. Adakiko (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Casper le fantome reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: )

    edit
    Latest comment: 16 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Anti-Romani sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Casper le fantome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307796701 by Babysharkboss2 (talk)"
    3. 19:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307795606 by Babysharkboss2 (talk)"
    4. 19:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1307795267 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    5. 19:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC) "Restored content after vandalism by StephenMackey. STill have to input all sources manually one by one. thanks steve"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Editor is disruptively replacing content with AI-generated content and violated WP:3RR after being warned twice. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hello,
    I am Casper le fantome, responding to the report by StephenMacky1 regarding alleged edit warring on the Anti-Romani sentiment article. I would like to clarify the situation and provide context for my actions.
    1. Vandalism by StephenMacky1
    StephenMacky1 has repeatedly deleted large sections of sourced historical content without discussion, leaving the article disjointed. These deletions constitute vandalism, not constructive editing, and are why the usual WP:3RR guidelines do not apply. My reverts were aimed at restoring accurate, sourced historical information.
    2. Separate discussion with Babysharkboss2
    I have taken the discussion regarding specific content separately with Babysharkboss2 to ensure proper consensus-building and to avoid conflicts. This demonstrates my commitment to collaboration and following Wikipedia’s dispute resolution processes. My understanding is that Stephen's vandalism has disrupted the text so much that I accidentally triggered a bot, which led Babyshark to revert back to Stephen vandalized version.
    3. Use of AI
    As English is not my first language, I sometimes use AI only for grammar and readability checks. All historical content is written and sourced by me, and AI has not created any historical claims.
    4. Relevance of content
    All restored material is directly relevant to the article, detailing the persecution, legal restrictions, and social marginalization of Roma across Europe. Claims that it is irrelevant or AI-generated are inaccurate.
    5. Request
    I respectfully ask administrators to review the edits and sources. My actions were restorative, not disruptive, and I request protection against unexplained deletions that remove verified historical content.
    Thank you for your attention and fair consideration. Casper le fantome (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Hanum143 reported by User:Erecorar (Result: )

    edit
    Latest comment: 16 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Page: Osmanabad district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hanum143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and potentially affiliated IPs 42.104.221.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 42.104.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted* to: Special:Diff/1307905775

    Diffs of the user's reverts*:

    1. Special:Diff/1307935867
    2. Special:Diff/1307935512
    3. Special:Diff/1307934499
    4. Special:Diff/1307929621
    5. Special:Diff/1307933166
    6. Special:Diff/1307928609
    7. Special:Diff/1307928150
    8. Special:Diff/1307905775

    *The edits given are not reverts; the user appears to be manually editing the lead sentence as well as random segments of the article each time.



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1307906809

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The change of the article's name has been discussed and opposed several times in Talk:Osmanabad_district. Hanum143 has been informed several times (Special:Diff/1307906809, Special:Diff/1307932057, Special:Diff/1307933561) of the existing discussion.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1307939690

    Comments:
    Osmanabad district has seen a flood of edits this morning from Hanum143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 42.104.221.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 42.104.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all seeking to nonconstructively rename parts of the article to reference Dharashiv District instead of its WP:COMMONNAME. Hanum143 attempted to cite a source for the new name on their talk page (Special:Diff/1307932749), though the source given is an unhelpful link to an official government website. The article already states "officially known as Dharashiv District". Most of these edits have been reverted by several RCPers this morning, including myself. Hanum143 and 42.104.222.112 have been warned already by several different users, to no effect. I suspect all three users are the same, and would recommend CheckUsering them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erecorar (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1307940251"