Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

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:Hippo43, IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by User:Mathnerd314159 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: French mother sauces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP's with the same prefix

Previous version reverted to (Hippo43): Special:Diff/1261641655

Previous version reverted to (IP): Special:Diff/1262083607

Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1266765594
2. Special:Diff/1263376343
3. Special:Diff/1262689543
4. Special:Diff/1262458566

Diffs of IP's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1266834913 (probably same IP)
2. Special:Diff/1263386233
3. Special:Diff/1262743746
4. Special:Diff/1262467272

There are a few more, just look at the recent history which is nothing but reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1262739350 (IP), Special:Diff/1237541954 (Hippo43, the IP warned them)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1261449232, discussion is still on talk at Talk:French_mother_sauces#Table_of_sauces

Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page: Special:Diff/1266963033

Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page: Special:Diff/1266962827, Special:Diff/1266962969

Comments:
I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Both editors, from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GachaDog reported by User:64.32.125.197 (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours)

Page: Crunchyroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GachaDog (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. 17:06, 15 December 2024 "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
2. 15:03, 25 December 2024
3. 03:01, 28 December 2024
4. 06:43, 31 December 2024
5. 03:36, 3 January 2025 "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

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

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

Comments: Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. 64.32.125.197 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners field GachaDog (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing on all infoboxes is a contentious topic, I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also). Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page: Khulna Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 76.68.24.171 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

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

Comments: This user keeps making disruptive edits in Khulna Division. Also, this IP address is violating WP:NPA by making personal attacks. Also violating block evasion as well. I warned the IP address to the talk page but did not respond (see WP:COMMUNICATION). Further information will be discussed on the ANI noticeboard. Migfab008 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bbb23,

  what about their other ip addresses?

  They are using slang in edit summary.

  check this.

  @Bbb23,

  check their contributions 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Cerium4B—Talk? • 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bbb23,

  User also uses these IPs to support their edits:

  1. 1. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
     2. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
     3. 2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
        After block expiration
     4. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
     5. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
     6. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think a range block is needed. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've blocked Special:contributions/2607:FEA8:571B:8000:0:0:0:0/64 for one month and painfully/tediously reverted all their edits. The other IPs listed haven't edited since November.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bbb23

  now check this

  user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat?
  2605:8D80:6432:8C67:E42E:8C4:6EAF:1E4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait I’m translating it. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”

N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs in Bengali language, I’ve not added this in the translation.

It’s like this @Bbb23 — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

again with another IP

user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

Thank you so much for your time.

You gave me a lot of support, and it means a lot. 😊 — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:138.88.222.231 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Paul Pelosi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 138.88.222.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
2. 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Link"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
   4. 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Vineyard"
   5. 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit California"
   6. 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
   7. 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   2. 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   2. 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   3. 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   4. 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   5. 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   6. 18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   7. 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   8. 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
6. Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   2. 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   3. 18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   4. 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   5. 18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   6. 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   7. 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   8. 19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   9. 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   10. 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   11. 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   12. 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   13. 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   14. 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   15. 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   16. 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   17. 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   18. 15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   19. 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   20. 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   21. 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   22. 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   23. 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   24. 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   25. 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   26. 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   27. 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   28. 16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   29. 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   30. 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   31. 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   32. 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   33. 17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   34. 17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   35. 17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   36. 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
   37. 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Paul Pelosi."
2. 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Paul Pelosi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• See Talk:Paul Pelosi#Property portfolio

Comments:

EW with IDHT and copyvios. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits [5], as noted by the difference between successive attempts [6] (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo reported by User:Iljhgtn (Result: No violation)

Page: Wounded Knee Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

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

Comments: I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate WP:3RR. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljhgtn (talk • contribs)

• Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back months, we may have some OWN issues to unpack. GMG^talk 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see three reverts, 1. 2, and 3. This maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh good lord. You've been warring on this since at least 2023. GMG^talk 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.

Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: LA Times, Rapid City Journal, The Oregonian.

Though you've now removed all of these from the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Go...like...get consensus. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. GMG^talk 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a partial revert of a November 30 edit. I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• No violation Iljhgtn and GreenMeansGo, take the discussion elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamilfilmsbuff reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

Page: Ponnunjal (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262246919 by Srivin (talk)"
   2. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262236945 by Kailash29792 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Dharmam Engey. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in Kunkhumam. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 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. There's only two, their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:justthefacts reported by User:The Cheesedealer (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2025 New Orleans truck attack

User being reported: User:justthefacts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:07, 04 January 2025
2. 18:01, 03 January 2025
3. 07:40, 03 January 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16], the whole section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:

User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per WP:ONUS and edit-wars instead to get it in.

I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore in this[18] edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.

• Warned No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Andra Febrian reported by User:HiLux duck (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]

Comments: This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations [21].

• No violation EvergreenFir (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: Withdrawn)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Note: WP:1RR is active on this page.

1. [23] (removes 1885 which I added)
2. [24] (removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)

See [25], [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zionism#§_Terminology

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. Andre🚐 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. Andre🚐 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? Andre🚐 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. WP:POINTY vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they noted the tenuous nature of their grievance: While the two edits are slightly different, in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, arguably, two reverts, violating the 1RR sanction on this article, emphasis my own. When they invited me to self-revert, I invited them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.

I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I removed 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos pointed out on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was still necessary to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. إيان (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

POINT is when you disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? Andre🚐 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. Andre🚐 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now. [29] [05:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)]

He was in 2021: [30] [05:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)] Nvm, that's another area. [05:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)] He was warned in 2021 [31] for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. Andre🚐 05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Zyn225 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Zyn225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
2. 18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
3. 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
4. 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Shahada."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Single purpose account, does not grasp WP:ALLAH soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.

I think some people are talking a Wikipedia page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.

A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?

It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Wikipedia page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. Zyn225 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225: The place to discuss your change is at Talk:Shahada. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Wikipedia works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are warned that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23 the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th

FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.

Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Wikipedia needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? Zyn225 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225 you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.

Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. Zyn225 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOT HERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. Zyn225 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Jabust reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267352173 by Inexpiable (talk) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
2. 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267351775 by Inexpiable (talk)"
3. 17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266631201 by Thenightaway (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
3. 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
4. 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Wikipedia policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a Check User on this individual also. Inexpiable (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at List of people executed in the United States in 2007, where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to 2017-2019 Saudi Arabian purge, for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Wikipedia. Jabust (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.

He isn't "enraged", @Inexpiable is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as List of people executed in the United States in 2024, in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.

In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.

You're currently blocked by @EvergreenFir for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. TheCheapTalker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust: I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the List of people executed in the United States in 2007 in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result:48 hour block)

Page: The Infernal City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482274
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482193
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482158
4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482128
5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482079
6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481888
7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481865
8. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481818
9. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481665
10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267480293
11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481371
12. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481332
13. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481291
14. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267480660
15. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267479555
16. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481191
17. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481120
18. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
19. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480882
20. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
21. Others (see [[32]].)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. Migfab008 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)