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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1] on March 6 16:58
2. [2] on March 6 19:48
3. [3] on March 7 10:06
4. [4] on March 7 10:32

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [5]

Additional warning by other editors:

1. [6]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

They didn't use tp, as per Wp:Onus what they should have done.

Comments:

Editor was well informed previously on their tp by admin [], about contagious topic regarding eastern Balkans, still choses to impose their truths without reaching a consensus on tp or clarifying political situations with additional sources reaching balanced interpretations. The notification about this report is posted on their tp [[8]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, since the user accusing me of breaching the Three-revert rule and edit-warring can't link properly, I'll go ahead and link them myself.

The Addition of the "controversial" edit, this is where it all started.

My 1st Revert of User:Sadko,

my 2nd Revert with an attempt to reword from myside of Theonewithreason,

my 3rd Revert again of Theonewithreason,

and finally Theonewithreason went on and reverted my edit again. So now we are in the same stance, with each having three reverts done to the article.

The users claim that this addition falls into WP:DUE, which states that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views..."

The one who can read can clearly understand that this is not the case with the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the declaration of independence of Kosovo. ICJ's reference that I provided is a significant viewpoint, a highly reliable source (technically and legally), is nowhere near minority or tiny minorities views and provides a balance on the, claimed by the Serbian government, violation of international law.

As per the notice of edit warring on my talk page that User:Theonewithreason linked trying to picture me as an aggressive user, this notice was a result of "edit-war" from the side of an aggressive user who already has been banned indefinitely, his talk page discussion where I was also mentioned.

On this matter, Theonewithreason actually also got a block recently (on 17 of January, his second one) for around two weeks, and he came back again engaging in the same behaviour.

As you can clearly see, I did not went ahead and reverted the edit one more time, having the Three-revert-rule in my mind. So, I kindly ask you to dismiss this claim and based on the explanations provided revert my edit. Thank you! Kogjaimeqem (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this content dispute but I want to point out that this is not Kogjaimeqem's first account and that they have a history of blocks and POV/disruptive editing on their previous account which should be factored in when deciding what, if any sanction is given since this is not a new editor. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Typical Albanian --Griboski (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mojtaba Khamenei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Stanik Afghani (talk) to last revision by SavagePanda845"
2. 01:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1342451018 by Crampcomes (talk): Reverted vandalism"
3. 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1342450231 by Crampcomes (talk)"
4. 01:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Stanik Afghani (talk) to last revision by Estar8806"
5. 00:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1342440833 by Crampcomes (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I myself only made one revert without knowing this user and another were warring. Therefore there are no warnings or resolution initiatives on my part. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mojtaba Khamenei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "NeoSyria, I am not engaging in edit war; I have opened a discussion at Talk:Mojtaba Khamenei; The user Crampcomes refuses to discuss and engage and has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard"
2. 01:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342451515 by Crampcomes (talk); Reverting disruptive blocked user who has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard"
3. 01:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342451255 by Crampcomes (talk); Undo disruption, your account is going to get reported now"
4. 01:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342450412 by Crampcomes (talk); Again reverting; do not start an edit war, instead engage on Talk:Mojtaba Khamenei#Basij involvement, if you refuse to do so, I would have to report your accoutn"
5. 01:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342450061 by Crampcomes (talk); Discuss this on talk page before adding this to the leads"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I myself only made one revert without knowing this user and another were warring. Therefore there are no warnings or resolution initiatives on my part. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear on my part. I opened a discussion at Talk:Mojtaba Khamenei and called for the user Crampcomes to engage in a civil discussion. They refused and kept adding disputed content, eventually forcing me to report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. They accuse me of being an "Iranian regime supporter" which is a blatant false accusation. I have no problem with any content being added unless it is properly sourced. Stanik Afghani (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanik Afghani I don't see how the edits you reverted were so obviously disruptive that they qualify you for an exemption to WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of people known as the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-15064-79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user keeps reverting this page with many temporary accounts since 2025 without explaining reasons to do so. The page once get protected before, but when it expired in March they appeared again. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_known_as_the_Great&action=history . Coddlebean (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: John F. Kennedy International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342498713 by Danners430 (talk) BRD is not binding policy, and is thus not justification for reversion."
2. 08:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342498194 by Danners430 (talk) I don't care if you disagree, you are the one intentionally creating formatting errors and erroneous citations after you were warned not to. Stop."
3. 07:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342492160 by Danners430 (talk)According to who? That is not policy"
4. 02:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1342299673 by Electricmemory (talk): WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is non-binding, and you undid a bunch of other error fixes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John F. Kennedy International Airport."
2. 08:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John F. Kennedy International Airport."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC) on User talk:VenFlyer98 "Caution: Unconstructive editing on John F. Kennedy International Airport."

Comments:

Note that this editor left a “disruptive editing” user warning template on the talk page of the editor who reverted them (which wound up turning into a full-blown discussion about them not discussing on the article talk page) and has left a similar template on my own, plus two other templates about edit summaries from my own talk page - [9][10] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a warning notice for disruptive editing on VenFlyer's talk page because his reversion on John F. Kennedy International Airport re-added formatting errors and duplicated citations after I removed them. Danners430 proceeded to revert again ignoring the formatting errors and citations once more, and leaving this comment and this comment falsely claiming I called the content dispute disruptive editing, which never happened, and falsely claiming the warning template was erroneous, which it wasn't.
• Danners then claims I am trying to "restore my preferred version", which is irrelevant given his "preferred version" includes large formatting errors and duplicated citations (which would have never been a problem had he simply removed them before publishing, but he made no attempt to do so)
• Danners also tries to use WP:BRD as a justification for edit reversion, which is not permissable given WP:BRD is not a binding policy and is not required to be followed.
• If Danners wants to go the 3RR route, he breaks it himself here.
• I also warned Danners for the disruptive editing on his talk page, which he followed up with a misleading edit summary, which I warned him for, which he followed up with another misleading edit summary, which I warned him for again, which he removed without comment.

This reply from Danners demonstrates a clear refusal to get the point, which is that if he wishes to undo my moving of refs around the page, he needs to do so without re-introducing the formatting errors and duplicated citations I previously removed. Electricmemory (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]