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:Mstevenskeane reported by User:Orange sticker (Result: No violation)

Page: Keir Starmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mstevenskeane (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
User has engaged on talk page but not gained consensus. Repeatedly inserting statement into lead that "during his tenure as the head of the CPS he "chose, controversially, not to prosecute" the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandel."(sic). A user made a semi-protected edit request[8] pointing out that this reads as if Starmer made the decision personally, which the citation does not support. Mstevenskeane has repeated reinserted this inform before even engaging on the talk page, and then engaging but not seeking consensus. I think this may be a case of WP:CIR, after this response:[9]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:57, 12 June 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. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:82.42.214.75 reported by User:Bly000 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: [[10]]
User being reported: [[11]]

Previous version reverted to: [[12]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

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

Comments:

Seems like the account is a single serving IP editing and undoing only the particular article and specifically the Controversies section Bly000 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was slightly malformed, but I was able to review it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring, breaking of 4rr rule (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: Kaiseredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring warning : [[19]]

Diffs on recent edit warrings/4rr:

1. [[20]]
2. [[21]]
3. [[22]]
4. [[23]] 4 rr in less than 3 Hours

Diffs on previous edit warring's:

On list of wars involving Bulgaria:

1. [[24]],
2. [[25]],
3. [[26]],
4. [[27]],
5. [[28]],
6. [[29]],
7. [[30]],
8. [[31]] etc.

Bulgaria national football team:

1. [[32]]
2. [[33]]
3. [[34]]
4. [[35]] etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[36]], [[37]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[38]]

Comments:

This all happened in the last few days, including 4rr in less than a 3 Hours span on this page [[39]], not to mention several other pages where Kaiseredit is edit warring for few days now. Kaiseredit doesn't react to talk page or doesn't even bother to answer. Nor do they present any wp:rs to their additions. This is the obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to reply to talk pages, I have not used this prior, sorry about that. I am not here to do harm, all my work has been a contribution, look it over. Kaiseredit (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You replied to at least one post there in May [[40]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And you are still, at it [[41]], edit warring when under a report is really, really silly. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For edit warring across multiple articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Skitash reported by User:ElijahUHC (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295380468

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295319179
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295391159
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295395049

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295394910

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sloughi&oldid=1295394888

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295397244

Comments:

Skitash first reverted another user's edit about alternative names for the Sloughi breed. I then made a compromise edit suggesting all alternative names be placed in a note. Skitash reverted me, and I warned them and invited them to the talk page. They reverted me again afterward. I'm avoiding further reverts and requesting admin review.

I've only made three reverts within 24 hours, so I have not violated WP:3RR. By stating "Do not revert again until issue is resolved in the talk page of the topic," ElijahUHC seems to misunderstand WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Per these policies, the burden of achieving consensus lies with the editor making the change, not with those maintaining the stable version of the article, which had been in place for several years. I'd also like to note this editor's constant WP:FORUMSHOPPING against me and other editors, which is becoming quite disruptive.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] Skitash (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder: WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about raising the same issue in multiple venues. This thread concerns a completely different matter and article. Referring to various past noticeboards involving you or me is odd, especially when those were about unrelated issues. Our involvement in multiple discussions doesn’t mean they’re all connected.

I could also point to past reports you’ve made about me and call that forum shopping-but they aren't, and I won’t, because that’s not what this is about. This thread focuses on one specific issue. If you believe it extends beyond possible edit warring, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate venue.

Given my past interactions with @M.Bitton-who I assume is the “other editor” being referenced-I’m somewhat concerned about the neutrality of their involvement here. I’m not sure how they came across this discussion.[51] [52] ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I’m not accusing either user of collaboration. I’m only noting that the other user "note" may be biased due to past friction with me, which he acknowledged earlier on a different talk page as i cited earlier. ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg: Hello, just wanted to bring your attention back to this discussion. You previously blocked ElijahUHC indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE, and later unblocked them under the condition that they avoid Morocco-related articles and demonstrate constructive editing in a different topic area, which they agreed to. However, after being unblocked, they disappeared entirely, and upon returning, immediately resumed the same POV editing on Morocco-related articles.[53][54][55] They have not made any constructive contributions elsewhere, and have only been edit warring and forum shopping since. Thanks. Skitash (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

 Note: a passing IP removed content without a valid reason and was rightfully reverted. This should have been the end of it, but no, the OP (who has been after Skitash for a while) had to to take it further; first by offering a false compromise (while deleting the Arabic name without even an explanation, let alone a valid reason), and then, lo and behold, rushing to yet another venue to try to get Skitash blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 13 June 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. As seems clear from the discussion, this is a bad-faith report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Uniquesuprise reported by User:MrOllie (Result: blocked from the page for a week)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "This still does not address the contradiction nor does it address the misconception."
2. 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295271595 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
3. 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295270675 by Bon courage (talk)"
4. 19:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Contradictory statement."
5. 16:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295409398 by Bon courage (talk) Section is inaccurate and is currently in dispute resolution." (after they replied to this report)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Circumcision."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

User has stated that "The previous reply is the last on this matter.", so it seems they do not plan to discuss on the talk page any longer. They are also aware of the contentious topics restrictions on the topic. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This page should be systematically review for violations of POV and locked with full protection. I and other editors have been trying to add more accurate and up to date information to for a consensus on this topic. The page has a long history of misinformation including sources who have specific scientific articles condemning there research. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I am referring specificity to this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00631-y " Despite our efforts to provide a reasoned and balanced assessment of current evidence [2], they continue to rely heavily on self-cited and previously discredited studies, and repeatedly make inaccurate assessments of the quality of available evidence, based on entrenched and partisan opinion " Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This reply is emblematic of the problems that make engaging with this editor frustrating and unproductive:

1. They have never cited that source at talk, so it's unclear what relevance it has to the dispute that led to their 5+ reverts
2. It's a commentary article, not MEDRS, so we wouldn't use it to support any medical content
3. They've continued to edit war while responding here

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I have cited multiple source other editors have cited multiple sources.

2. It is not a commentary article it a systematic review of self cited research resulting it misinformation.

3. I am requesting the page be fully locked and the cited sources and materials be reviewed with the most up to date information be used to write the article.

There is a serious POV issue with the article. Primarily with the cited sources and research being conducted as voluntary medical male circumcision while not making this clear distinction between neonatal circumcision.

Finally the word uncircumcised should not be used. The correct term used in medical literature is intact and is listed as so in the cited articles Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And still at it [[56]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked from the article Circumcision for a week. Use the talk page to gain consensus. It's particularly disruptive to continue edit warring after responding to this report. If edit warring continues after this block expires, it will be upgraded to site-wide and indefinite length. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  How can there be consensus when these editors are push a coordinated POV Uniquesuprise (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ronnnaldo7 reported by User:The Cheesedealer (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran
User being reported: Ronnnaldo7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:42, 13 June 2025
2. 21:14, 13 June 2025

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: here

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

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

Comments:

User has engaged on the talk page, and reacted to the warnings given to him (negatively) — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page, I didn't believe it was against 1RR since it wasn't a true revert; it was added content per your request for WP:BALANCE, and I discussed it on the talk page. I have tried to keep my edits in WP:GoodFaith, and I think it's very disingenuous of you to say my reaction was negative after I thanked you and asked you to educate me on the matter if I am misunderstanding 1RR. I won't make changes to the article any more if it makes you feel any better.

Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ronnnaldo7, An edit (...) that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In your first revert, you knew you were reverting Special:Diff/1295426022 and thus referred to StarkReport when undoing their section removal.

In your second revert, you restored the section again, reverting Special:Diff/1295452614 by The Cheesedealer.

You had previously edit warred about the same section in the same article ([57], [58], [59]).

Instead of self-reverting as requested in Special:Diff/1295567669, you pointed The Cheesedealer to the article talk page as if their conduct concern was appropriate for an article talk page. It is not; article talk pages are for content, user talk pages are for conduct.

You're now accusing the reporter of disingenuous behavior and behave as if you still don't understand the issue ("if I am misunderstanding"; "if it makes you feel any better"). The main reason why you won't make changes to the article anymore is that you leave me little other choice than blocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:12.75.116.22 reported by User:ImAWubbox1984 (Result: )

Page: Michael Palance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 12.75.116.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Proof of Blackhat. NightWolf1223, Maproom and Knitsey are the same Wikipedia user trying to Vandalize the page. Undid revision 1295655215 by NightWolf1223 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Falsely slandering users of sockpuppetry, clearly Yomommacanskate evading block as shown with the same edit summary when editing the same page. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Hermes_Express reported by User:Theoneandonlylinguist09 (Result: Filer blocked for a month)

Page: Multiple including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Fiji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Prime_Minister_(Fiji) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Fiji&action=history

User has been informed on their wikipedia page that their edits are incorrect, but he has refused to comply, does not admit his mistakes and keeps edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Filer was recently (8 June) blocked for editwarring for the same issue that he is now reporting the other party for. The Banner talk 12:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at their edits today, they've come off the block and are going round repeating all the reverts that got them blocked in the first place. Not to excuse Hermes_Express's part in this, but that's a spectacularly bad idea and I have blocked for a month this time, and if it happens again in a month's time the next one will inevitably be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:218.102.129.236 reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: )

Page: Tropical Storm Wutip (2025) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 218.102.129.236 (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 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Extra space removed."
   2. 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295733885 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Leizhou peninsula is a peninsula in Guangdong where the storm made its second landfall. Go to the talk page to demonstrate your ignorance in the subject rather than edit summaries."
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*See also*/ Added missing fullstop."
      • This edit was not a revert. Thanks. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   2. 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*Impact*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Interwiki link for Quốc lộ 49."
   3. 14:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Guangdong -› Leizhou peninsula. Be more specific."
   4. 14:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Wikilinked tropical cyclone naming."
   5. 14:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Adverb."
   6. 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Specified the whereabout of the island when it appears for the very first time in the main text."
3. 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Impact */"
      • This was not a revert. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   2. 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295615278 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tropical Storm Wutip (2025)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This IP is linked to 218.102.164.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was recently blocked after I warned them. After that, the user began using a different IP address to engage in an edit war with me. However, despite repeated explanations, this IP did not listen and continued mass reverting. HurricaneEdgar 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses are re-assigned on and off. I was not aware of any block until I saw this message of Edgars. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Thank you for the notification. Please refer to the talk page discussion with HurricaneEdgar for more details. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:5.42.221.141 reported by User:Skywatcher68 (Result: )

Page: Canadian National 3254 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.42.221.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:
Editor has unilaterally decided that no gallery is needed and simply directs people to WP:GALLERY.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User is blaming me for vandalism were I was only following the policy about galleries. Skywatcher68 is giving me problems when I asked him kindly to follow the policy about what I’m trying to explain to him. But be refuses to listen. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You're not explaining anything, you simply say it's not needed and direct people to WP:GALLERY. I see you've now invoked @Danners430 but you still have not responded on Talk:Canadian National 3254.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made it clear to the IP that I do not wish to be involved in this dispute. I do remove galleries, but as of yet nobody has objected to my removals. Edit warring is not the solution, and especially not 4RR - talk page discussions are. Danners430 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy that applies to WP:GALLERY explains when galleries of photos are appropriate and when they are not. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Galleries are not appropriate for this type of articles, please kindly follow the policy to what I’m explaining. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

See, that's more specific than anything you've said to this point. Why did it take a 3RR report to get here? Now that the issue is clear, would you be open to moving the images out of a gallery and next to the text as WP:GALLERY prefers?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Now I’m kindly waiting for my apology from you, because you know I did nothing wrong. After all this hell you put me through, I don’t know if I can forgive you it not. But I’m glad it’s finally over. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The IP is also at 4 reverts in the past hour on the New Hope Railroad 40 article. Time for them to take a break. --McSly (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, I was not. I stated multiple times of my edits and you guys are continuing to make me look bad when all I was doing was following the galleries policy. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:3RR as the next policy you digest, as it is a lot more important. Danners430 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It still doesn’t make sense on why they are ok with you deleting the gallery section and not me. 5.42.221.141 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MSLQr reported by User:Orientls (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Hill station
User being reported: User:MSLQr

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:33, 15 June 2025
2. 16:09, 15 June 2025
3. 16:28, 15 June 2025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Talk page discussion:[70]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[71]

Comments:

There are broader issues with this user since he falsely claimed[72] with his first edit that the information is not supported by the sources. He has also refused to self-revert.[73] Orientls (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor is now trying to get around his falsification of sources by making another false claim[74] that this version says the term "Hill station" was created during the times of Ganga Dynasty or Tipu Sultan. With this logic (even if his point is considered), wheel wasn't invented before the word "wheel" was coined. Orientls (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Orientls, WP:ANI would be better for reporting falsification of sources or similar non-edit-warring behavior. I'll only check if there's an edit war here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

MSLQr and Orientls, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS both favor the removal of material during a discussion. If you have found a consensus about disputed content, you can restore it. Until then, the article is fine without it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:UtherSRG reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: )

Page: Complete algebraic curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]

The user is even now threating a block. [81] Is this really an acceptable behavior?? I have at least tried to engage with the editor in the talkpage. (I suppose I myself technically violated 3RR. For that, I apologize. I got too emotional.) -- Taku (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)