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:62.165.254.251 reported by User:SnowyRiver28 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Dunlop Tyres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 62.165.254.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314422205 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
2. 10:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314422129 by Gurkubondinn (talk)"
3. 10:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314421975 by Gurkubondinn (talk) This is misinfo. Correcting misinfo is perfectly valid."
4. 09:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418638 by SnowyRiver28 (talk)"
5. 09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418483 by SnowyRiver28 (talk) I literally added a source4 that SRI owns it globally now?"
6. 09:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418211 by SnowyRiver28 (talk)"
7. 09:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314258741 by Gurkubondinn (talk) but it also added a new source to the new statement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
3. 09:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Dunlop Tyres */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC) on User talk:62.165.254.251 "/* Dunlop Tyres */ new section"

Comments:

This is the first time I've reported anyone here so I apologise if I've done something incorrectly and would appreciate any feedback or tips! The user has continued reverting edits and ignoring warnings which aren't included in my report. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This IP has been triggered the edit filter and possible disruption. KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 10:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There is now a conversation with the user on Talk:Dunlop Tyres § Japanese ownership where we're helping them learn how to use and reference sources on Wikipedia, so hopefully this has a productive outcome. Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the duplicate report, looks like you submitted one as I was working on submitting a report for the same user/edit war. This was the first time that I've reported an edit warring user as well, so it took me some time while reading the guidelines and policies while submitting the report. Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, hopefully we'll both get some useful feedback and tips from a reviewing admin :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 72 hours by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:9462:CF00:CAF:5191:C:C2B6 reported by User:SnowyRiver28 (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Soumitra Dutta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:9462:CF00:CAF:5191:C:C2B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "This is the correct version."
2. 12:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC) to 12:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 12:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 12:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Soumitra Dutta."
3. 12:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
4. 12:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Materialscientist Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Chicdat reported by User:Rangooner (Result: Resolved by participants)

Issue has been resolved. Please disregard this report. Rangooner (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Page: List of fascist movements by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicdat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User has repeatedly engaged in edit wars on various pages, likely due to personal disagreement with content. User has been warned and encouraged to engage in the discussion regarding the content. However, they continuously revert revisions to restore the content, despite their deletions being reverted by myself and multiple other users, and instead accuse those other users of engaging in edit warring and continue the behavior despite warnings and attempts to reconcile the issue on the discussion page. Rangooner (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Rangooner is coming off a week-long block for edit-warring and immediately edit-warred the contested material back in despite the onus being on them to find consensus for the disputed material on the talk page. Contrary to their claim, they never pointed me to that discussion, and I was unaware it existed until then. Also, no "other user" has restored the content I have deleted. On the contrary, many editors have reverted your additions of the content. You have also continuously called mine and other edits vandalism and cast aspersions on Slatersteven and myself on your talk page and mine, respectively. Judging from the intense focus on calling Trump fascist and nothing at all else, you appear to be an SPA. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

A quick look at the history of both pages shows that other users have restored the content you've removed, and you've reverted those edits as well. I have pointed you to the discussion on the talk page on multiple occasions. Rangooner (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

But you were still blocked for it. Thus YOU are still edit-warring. You both need to step away. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I was blocked for reverting edits made on an entirely different page. Rangooner (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And this does not seem to be a 3rr breach. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You might want to read the page Wikipedia:Edit_warring.

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Rangooner (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out below, you have reverted at least as often, so by your criteria, you are also edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I was unaware of the policy on edit warring before I was blocked on Fascism, as I was under the impression that reverting edits to remove content for personal disagreement (which was vandalism as I understood it, but apparently not) was not considered edit warring. I have since educated myself on these articles, restored those pages to the status quo, notified users to engage in the discussion before removing content, and reported Chicdat instead of reverting any further edits to abstain from engaging in an edit war. Rangooner (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

restored those pages to the status quo, incorrect, the pages were at the status quo until you re-added the disputed material back in on 1 October across two different articles. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The status quo was set on Talk:List_of_fascist_movements#US where a discussion about how the content should be reformatted was started. Rangooner (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The definition of status quo is "existing state of affairs". By definition, that means the text you added being in the article is not the status quo. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Evidence for either one? In your reverts I only see you threatening to report me to AIV. I have only ever made five reverts to the page, all of which removed content that you added. You have restored the content almost three times more. (Not counting when you edited while logged out to circumvent 3RR.) You never pointed me to any discussion on the talk page except to falsely claim that "consensus has been reached" on that talk page. I also agree with Slatersteven. I have made no edits to either page since yesterday, and don't plan to again. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that I did point you to this discussion, where a consensus about how the content should be included and worded was made before you began removing content and engaging in edit warring by reverting edits made to restore that content. Rangooner (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Zero consensus was found. (Also, you never pointed me to that discussion. You pointed me to the talk page, and no specific discussion, over a week before starting that discussion.) The thing here is that I do, personally, believe that Donald Trump is a fascist. I would support an RFC to add in a sentence. But this needs to be discussed. You are right, I did not discuss until just now. But there were discussions ongoing, which did not find consensus for your changes. Not until they found consensus could you add the disputed material back in. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, regardless, I have pointed you to the discussion page (where a discussion on the topic already exists) on multiple occasions. Instead of engaging in the conversation there, you have continued to revert edits made by myself and others to restore the content you continuously remove. Rangooner (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you repeat falsehoods. You pointed me to the discussion page once and I never reverted content that was not added by you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Proof on the contrary, you have reverted content from other users on these pages: [9]

Rangooner (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not. You added that material. An IP removed it, which was Huggled as vandalism by Criticize due to the edit summary. The content was not at all from Criticize. This will be my last edit to the page. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And a consensus was in fact found, if you actually read that discussion, about how the content of that topic should be formatted, without dispute on removal of the topic entirely. Rangooner (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd just additionally like to point to this conversation that has been updated since filing this report, to help showcase that a consensus is being formed on the topic, and even the user I've reported here admits to that despite previously deleting related content I've added to. While I don't necessarily want anyone blocked, I would appreciate continued collaboration on this rather than removal of content supported by a consensus of academics, especially without engaging in discussions on these topics. Rangooner (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be best to now shut up and let the admins decide; they have all they need. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm having a hard time finding a reason not to impose a CTOP AMPOL topic ban on Rangooner at this point. They've already been notified. Perhaps just from mainspace, though the signal-to-noise ratio of their talk page contributions don't exactly inspire confidence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Could you help me understand why you feel that way? I'm trying to reach through the proper channels and engage in talk page discussions rather than reverting edits to preserve content that is repeatedly deleted. Rangooner (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Genuinely, if there's something I'm doing incorrectly at this point, I'd like to be aware so I can fix the behavior. As someone who studies contemporary fascism, my hope as a new editor here is to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date and representative of the findings of the academic community. My hope in creating this report was to resolve this issue since Chicdat has refrained from engaging in the discussion about this on the talk page, and instead continues to revert edits from myself and others on those pages. Rather than continuing to revert those reversions, I felt it would be appropriate to create a report given the ample warnings and requests for Chicdat to participate in discussion on the topic rather than continuing to edit war. Rangooner (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also, it'd be great if you could explain to me what about that particular talk page contribution is unfavorable. Is it because I'm agreeing with someone and not raising enough additional new points? Like is it discouraged to add comments unless they "add something" to the topic rather than, say, voicing agreement with another user? Rangooner (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Writ Keeper To be fair, Rangooner is effectively an SPA at the MAGA/Trump/Fascism interface: 145 edits to mainspace, with their top four most edited articles—List of fascist movements, List of fascist movements by country, Fascism and Factions in the Republican Party (United States)—comprising over two thirds of them (the remainder being of very much a similar kidney). I think we all appreciate the passion of a new editor, but this may be a case of RGW combined with a weaponization of our dispute resolution processes. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please inform me on what "DR processes" refers to? Rangooner (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Edited, apologies for the jargon. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Before you ask RGW wp:rightgreatwrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, I was able to find that one. Still unsure of what DR processes refers to. Rangooner (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to agree, FIM; my reasoning for a mainspace-only topic ban is the minimal sanction needed to get rid of the most obvious path of disruption, and allowing them to prove they're not an SPA if they're so inclined.

  Rangooner: Except that you did revert edits. And then dragged someone to a noticeboard to accuse them of the very thing you're doing. And then made a claim that you were "just reverting to the status quo"--which is a) false, and b) not a defense against edit-warring (see also m:The Wrong Version). All of this just days after your block for exactly this behavior. You need to stop editing mainspace about whether Donald Trump and his political movement is fascist or not, since you clearly aren't understanding Wikipedia policy about edit-warring.

  As for the talk page edit, there's no one thing that's a problem; indeed, it wouldn't be a problem at all in a vacuum. It's the overall tone, which combined with your other behavior is an indicator that you are here not to dispassionately write an encyclopedia but to prove and publicize a point about Trump and his politics; in Wikipedia jargon, we refer to this as "RGW", a shorthand for someone who is here to right great wrongs rather than to write a great encyclopedia. That's a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a definition of status quo for pages that do not require approval? My hope was to restore it to what I understood as the status quo given that I had the help of multiple other users to assist in revising the content I added, and I am not the only one who continues to restore that content since its addition. In regards to that comment, if you're referring to my use of the phrase "Trump and his cabinet of loyalists," I understand how that could potentially offend, say, his followers, but it's also an objectively true description. I used that particular phrasing to emphasize that his loyalists are working in lock-step with him to accomplish what is seen as a fascist agenda amongst scholars on fascism. Rangooner (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  See, this is the problem. The "status quo" is just that--the status quo. The way the page was before all this started. That means the way it was before you changed it, since it was your change that kicked it off. You're trying to wikilawyer and legalese your way around fairly simple concepts to suit your agenda. The fact that you even have an agenda is a problem, and the fact that you're trying to twist and weaponize policies to implement it--that's why people are losing patience with you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I never said I had an agenda other than to update Wikipedia to reflect the findings of scholars on fascism. What exactly do you think my agenda is? Rangooner (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  To make sure that Trump and his political movement is labeled as "fascist", in as many places as possible. Obviously. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, my agenda is to update Wikipedia to reflect the findings of scholars on fascism. It just so happens that those scholars are coming to a consensus as of recent that he is fascist. Rangooner (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have refrained from continually reverting edits since being blocked for reverting edits to delete content on a separate page. Also, while I see that it's valid to question my motivations as RGW, I've also made an effort to compile sources Wikipedia deems reliable and following the consensus made amongst academics on the subject. If you look at any contributions I made, I typically cite every single sentence for this very reason. I am striving to ensure all content I add is fully backed by strong academic sources and free of bias (hence wording such as "scholars are saying xyz" rather than "Trump is a fascist, period"). Rangooner (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that Chicdat has began engaging in conversations on the topic since I created this report, they've since acknowledged there does in fact appear to be a consensus to support the findings I added, which they were previously reverting, and they have decided to not continue to edit those pages, am I able to cancel this report? Again, I don't care to see anyone blocked, but I felt I had no choice at the time given the previous lack of collaboration on the topic, but it appears to be resolved at this point. Rangooner (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the report and am formally requesting this report be canceled. Thank you Chicdat for engaging in the ongoing discussions regarding this topic. Rangooner (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your continued bevahoir on the Talk:Fascism RfC, and general bludgeoning suggests the issues are not, in fact, resolved; I've removed the {{Resolved}} template (which isn't appropriate for this board). In any case, you should not be closing reports that you started in the middle of an on-going discussion, even if you now decide you don't like the direction it's taken. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

on the contrary, I'm happy with the turn this report has taken, as Chidat is now engaged in the discussion, hence my request to cancel the report. What "behavior" are you referencing on the RfC (which was opened upon suggestion of other editors)? Rangooner (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"General bludgeoning?" 😂 care to elaborate? Rangooner (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. >30 edits from you in this thread; nine from Chicdat. I think that's elaboration enough. (Similar, in fact, to your behavior on Talk:List of fascist movements, with your 21 edits to the closest other commentator (Dajas) on seven.) You really shouldn't keep insisting on the last word, even if you think you're right. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Declined per above. Although we cannot let this pass without noting that this is yet another instance where that discussion should have taken place on the talk page. It is never necessary to file a report here to force it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, which is why ai attempted to resolve this over the user's talk page and other discussions prior to filing the report. Appreciate your time. Rangooner (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

User:2001:2044:11A:9600:CD1B:F5D:77A2:F54A reported by User:MrOllie (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

Page: Multiplication table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:2044:11A:9600:CD1B:F5D:77A2:F54A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314903984 by MrOllie (talk) All multiplications of 0 are/were still left, in the lists of multiplications by the numbers 1-12, however, in the opposite order (i.e. 0x1, 0x2, etc. rather than 1x0, 2x0). I have considered that any multiplication table for 0 doesn't exist, as 0 times any number always becomes 0."
2. 20:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Still unnecessary to have a table for zero. Actually, a multiplication table for zero does not exist, because 0 added by zero, regardless of times, becomes 0."
3. 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314900615 by MrOllie (talk) No reason to restore. It is not so reasonable to require a source to the claim that schools may skip the table for 1."
4. 20:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Modern times */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range (2001:2044:11A:9600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))). Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Pbritti reported by User:GnatBush (Result: Page protected)

Page: Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pbritti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15] Comments:
The view that the Western Rite is marginal within the Eastern Orthodox Church was discussed a month ago here: Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#Western Rite, and there was agreement at that time. It is unclear why the statement was later removed from the article. --GnatBush (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

GnatBush misrepresents this discussion, claiming I assented to their edit after they were reverted by a different editor. I opposed their edit and, following more than a week to allow for input by other editors, I reverted them for the first time. They have now returned a month later, insisting on this edit despite discussion not returning a consensus in their favor. They have since participated in disruption on my talk page by poorly copying the appropriately placed warnings I placed on their talk page. It is worth noting that this is the sole target of their editing and they have only replied to my attempts at discussions with BATTLEGROUND language. I have never approached 3RR, but GnatBush has repeatedly restored their preferred version over multiple objections. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And I never received the {{subst:An3-notice}} notice, which is solely a procedural issue and only worth noting for GnatBush going forward. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for three days by Firsfron Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

But you protected not the original version by User:Thilio, but the version by Pbritti. Isn’t 0.001% clearly marginal? We cannot simply state that “the Eastern Orthodox Church has the Western Rite” without a more precise definition, can we? What should I do next to ensure that reliable information is available to Wikipedia readers? Pbritti refuses to discuss this matter and instead suggested that I “review other Wikipedia articles and practice editing,” even though I never asked them for such advice. --GnatBush (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

User:AtoZ22 and User:Umekkubo reported by User:Turniner

These two users have been consistently deleting constructive edits across diff articles on Wikipedia, specifically Nagi Inoue, Sakura Endo, Asuka Saitō, and other idol related articles for some reason.

Unconstructive edits done by: User:AtoZ22

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

Unconstructive edits done by: User:Umekkubo

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

Turniner (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

User:88.254.6.246 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )

Page: Bulan (Khazar) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.254.6.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] [27]

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

Comments:

This IP seems to think that their own opinion/deductions and random non-WP:RS count as WP:RS. They're possibly also misusing sources as they did here [29]. Their talk page is full of warnings. Also persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA behaviour:

"are you unable to read?"

"UNreliable SOurce" clearly mocking the user who said their additions were based on a unreliable source

"I also saw you spreading pro iranian tajik bs/nonse on otjer turkic pages. keep your bs to yourself eastern persian." they're replying to a 15 year old comment here..

Veteran my a.ss --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

More personal attacks: You are all also illiterate people unable to read / Here you go I give you worst admin award as well as nepotism award for siding with Account users. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)