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.
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.
Skydance International Networks as new name from Paramount and MGM Distribute by Sony Pictures with Blu-ray Discs Internationally. ~2026-56576-11 (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The Sony-MGM home entertainment thing is not true. And the source that you're using to back that fact up only mentions that Sony does only the theatrical distro for MGM's movies. The deal does not cover home entertainment. Zidane4028 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely Both TAs. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I think that this user is also the same, because they've taken to editing the page for MGM Home Entertainment in the exact same way with the exact same misinformation. Zidane4028 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like they got indeffed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Diffs of attempts to resolve the dispute on the article talk page:
Special:Diff/1381379985 — My detailed discussion and request for independent review, posted on 22 October 2026.
Special:Diff/1381688779 — My follow-up requesting independent review, posted on 24 October 2026.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
To be added immediately after filing this report.
Comments:
I am requesting an uninvolved administrator's review of a repeated reverting dispute concerning Justin Chart.
On 21 October 2026, Rift removed approximately 11,178 bytes of material under WP:LLMPRV. I challenged the basis for this wholesale removal and initiated a discussion on the article's talk page on 22 October, including references and a request for an independent assessment.
On 24 October 2026, I restored the material. Rift reverted the restoration at 03:47 UTC and again at 04:01 UTC after I restored it a second time.
The latter two edit summaries concerned an age citation, but the reverts removed substantially more than that individual item, including biographical and discographical additions.
I acknowledge that the three listed reverts do not amount to a technical violation of the three-revert rule within a single 24-hour period. Nevertheless, I request an assessment of whether the repeated reverting constitutes edit warring.
For transparency, my two undo edits on 24 October are Special:Diff/1381683668 and Special:Diff/1381688243. I recognize that further reverting would not resolve the disagreement, and I intend to pursue discussion and dispute resolution instead.
I understand that all article material, including my contributions, must meet Wikipedia's content, sourcing, and biography policies. I am prepared to address specific problems with the disputed additions.
My concern is the repeated removal of a substantial body of material while the underlying dispute remains unresolved.
I request that an uninvolved administrator examine the revision history, assess both parties' conduct, and determine whether any intervention is warranted. I also welcome independent editorial input on the underlying content dispute.
I find your response dismissive of the actual concerns I raised. I spent considerable time researching the article, gathering references, and documenting the subject's discography. Your comment does not address any of the three documented reverts or the reliability of the sources.
If you believe particular information is inaccurate, inadequately sourced, or violates Wikipedia's policies concerning AI-generated material, please identify the specific passages and explain the problem.
I am not opposed to legitimate corrections. I am opposed to having substantial research and potentially verifiable information removed repeatedly without a proper examination of the individual sources.
The issue here is not whether you approve of my editing approach. It is whether the disputed content meets Wikipedia's standards and whether the disagreement is being handled constructively.
I would appreciate a substantive response to the evidence presented rather than a dismissive question. I am requesting an independent, fair assessment of the disputed material and the repeated reversions.
My independent, fair assessment is as follows: it is dismissive and disrespectful to use AI to write content and communicate with others. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Edit the article, @Rift. You can do so. Not blanket revert. I have said it many times. And no, I do not use AI. Thank you. ILikeMyName1 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This response from them contains markdown used by AI (``` ```). aesurias (she/her) (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
All guides tell me to add it. For example, this one:
You may use == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
I am responding to your statements concerning alleged AI-generated content and your subsequent revert of the Justin Chart article at Special:Diff/1381693650.
Rift recommended that I test the disputed material using GPTZero. I followed that recommendation.
My tests using GPTZero and Scribbr returned results indicating that the submitted article text was human-written rather than AI-generated.
For transparency, I have shared the screenshots and the article text used for testing here:
I recognize that detector results cannot conclusively establish whether text was written with AI assistance. However, the same limitation applies to results claiming that text is AI-generated.
I would therefore appreciate an examination of the article's actual sources and factual claims rather than relying principally on automated detection scores.
I researched the material and had intended to review and rewrite portions that required improvement. I am not opposed to legitimate corrections or removal of unsupported content.
I ask that an uninvolved editor review the disputed material and distinguish verifiable information from anything that genuinely violates Wikipedia's policies.
I came across this by accident after id already blocked the OP for 3RR, , , , Amortias (T)(C) 09:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That's easy then, Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think a 31-hour block is sufficient - that was only for 3RR. The usage of AI has been egregious. They've spammed my talk page with constant denial of this, also written with AI. It's offensive, and they are WP:NOTHERE. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi aesurias, we'll see – if the disruption continues after the 31 hours, I'd be willing to place an indefinite-duration block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @ToBeFree, they have immediately resumed editing, adding AI-generated content back to Justin Chart while removing a notability template. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks – turns out they're a sockpuppet. Blocked, article protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
20:46, 24 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Activism */ Removed section as it does not follow our guidelines and is not considered activism. If anything, it would be considered anti-activism"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I'm not sure if this rises to the level of a block being required, but this user is evidently WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. 100% of their edits have been about some controversy involving Howie Mandel and the Israel-Palestine conflict. They keep leaving comments on people's talk pages about this, some of which seem mean-spirited or vaguely threatening... TheAwesomeHwyh 17:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Page protected~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
(I have seen the messages, but I think page protection does the job at the moment. We can still block if this leads to further disruption on other pages including users' talk pages.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Greater Moncton Roméo LeBlanc International Airport:
CFB Comox:
London International Airport:
Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport:
Fort McMurray International Airport:
Grande Prairie Airport:
Yellowknife Airport:
Erik Nielsen Whitehorse International Airport:
Kamloops Airport:
Nanaimo Airport:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Victoria International Airport:
Vancouver International Airport:
Abbotsford International Airport:
Edmonton International Airport:
John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport:
Greater Moncton Roméo LeBlanc International Airport:
CFB Comox:
London International Airport:
Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport:
Fort McMurray International Airport:
Grande Prairie Airport:
Yellowknife Airport:
Erik Nielsen Whitehorse International Airport:
Kamloops Airport:
Nanaimo Airport:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (posted on the most recent TA's talk pages at the time)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Editor has been edit warring the same content across multiple pages, despite four editors so far making it clear there's no consensus for inclusion. Note - TA ~2026-54682-79(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) has been adding the disputed content, however has not engaged in any reverts and based on TAIV data I don't believe is related. Danners430tweaks made 20:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It's pretty idiotic, really, but they seem to have stopped. If they revert again they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
To save the poor new user from this fate, I have now semi-protected the article for 2 weeks, which means they can continue editing it as long as they make five more contributions literally anywhere else. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Page protected~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
