Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page: Benedict Wong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348215468 by Soetermans (talk) User insists on reverting a correct edit. User is engagin in edit war."
2. 08:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348182530 by Soetermans (talk) user is attempting to engage in edit war."
3. 04:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1347383371 by Soetermans (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Benedict Wong."
2. 11:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Benedict Wong."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has accused me of ignorance on the topic of ethnicity, while breaking the 3RR, and accused me of wanting to edit war. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have edited an article about Benedict Wong to be in-line with almost all media mentions of him, and of the real state of affairs. The man is British by birth, but of Chinese Ethnicity, not English. Nudrien (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Nudrien has decided to start a discussion, after four revisions, where they talk about how I can't block them (well, yeah, hence this report), BRD and they go into detail about Wong. They also accuse me of a personal attack ("knock that shit off" is not a personal attack). I've asked them before to use the article's talk page, but they started the discussion on my talk page still. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I wish to report this user: ~2026-22313-31 for edit warring.

He has been reverting my edit of summary of critics reviews without proper justification

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacoit%3A_A_Love_Story&diff=1348216168&oldid=1348214102

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacoit%3A_A_Love_Story&diff=1348212179&oldid=1348211729

Talk page topic: User talk:~2026-22313-31#Edit warring warning: about critics summary of Dacoit movie

He has also been reverting the collection of the movie inspite of repeated explanations that 6.5 cr from Firstpost is India net and WW gross is >13.5 on first day per every other reliable source which have been cited. That has been mentioned in the revisions as well as in the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacoit%3A_A_Love_Story&diff=1348216168&oldid=1348214102

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dacoit%3A_A_Love_Story&diff=1348210437&oldid=1348210122

Talk page topic: User talk:~2026-22313-31#Dacoit 1st day WW gross collection ~2026-22285-92 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Page: Caterina Scorsone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-22330-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Not confirmed. Just talk"
2. 15:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Not confirmed, just talk."
3. 15:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Not confirmed, talk"
4. 14:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Not confirmed"
5. 12:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Not confirmed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Caterina Scorsone."
2. 15:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Caterina Scorsone."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverted similar edits made by multiple temporary accounts, User:~2026-22347-72, User:~2026-22323-32, User:~2026-22316-57 and User:~2026-22365-71 (which themselves may be linked) ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:51, 9 April 2026
2. 02:00, 10 April 2026
3. 22:28, 10 April 2026
4. 21:21, 11 April 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Trackstarx started a discussion themselves here

There was also a previous discussion started on Trackstarx's talk page by SIGM17 here.

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

Comments:
There's some nuance to this, in that SIGM17 (talk · contribs) has also been reverting repeatedly and has made arguably insufficient attempts to engage in discussion. But they have not done so after an edit warring warning on their talk (they were warned once, but have not reverted since).

On the other hand, Trackstarx (talk · contribs) has been reverted by multiple other editors and received multiple talk page warnings. Their edit summaries show issues like WP:OWN (stop reverting my page for weaker text. i bet my life's savings i'm more knowledgeable about Traore then you are) and casting aspersions on other editors (User:SIGM17 quit Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Traore's page just because you dont like the family code his government introduced).

Perhaps this is an argument for just protecting the page temporarily. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"Trackstarx started a discussion with themselves here"? I'm not Trackstarx open up a sock puppet investigation if I am him block me but I guarantee you, you won't find anything. I checked his profile he's only been on Wikipedia for three days so he's new he probably doesn't understand the rules good yet so it you're going to block him I think it shouldn't be a permanent block. Because of what I said on the talk page he thinks that means he's got consensus because another editor agrees with him so I think you should be patient. You told me earlier to assume good faith I think you should too. If you think he's my alt which he's not you can open a sock puppet investigation they won't find anything Kpop777 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anyone was anyone's alt. I was saying that Trackstarx themselves opened a discussion, as opposed to someone else opening a discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

oh sorry I misread you Kpop777 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"he thinks that means he's got consensus because another editor agrees with him" Yeah i might need to take that 2 week vacation i just got to learn more about how this site works lol Trackstarx (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Page: Heavyweight unification series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-19051-51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "User Asukite is guilty of edit warring, abuse of moderation privileges, and has now made a false accusation of vandalism. Revision undone. Please consult the Talk page for evidence as to why the information is irrelevant."
2. 03:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision. As clearly explained on the article's talk page, the information is irrelevant. If you're not here to defend your position with facts/references, then please find something else to do. Stop edit warring. Thank you."
3. 01:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348293279 by Martinpri (talk) Reverted because the information is irrelevant. Do not engage in edit warring on Wikipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Repeated removal of the same content by this IPV6/64 range going back to August 2025 ASUKITE 12:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asukite, thanks for coming here instead of reverting further. "WP:3RR" is clearly not a good reason for joining an edit war. If I understand correctly, doing so is a predefined option in RedWarn, so I have now requested for that to be removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I agree with you there (and did so on your other comment) - I am using this situation as a learning opportunity as to how this could have better been handled and frankly entirely forgot about the existence of this noticeboard. ASUKITE 20:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  All good, thanks and no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Page: Justinas Pranaitis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-22738-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "The removed text is opinion, not factual. And its removal in no way changes the content"
2. 00:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 23:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 21:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 23:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking."
3. 00:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
4. 00:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "/* April 2026 */ Reply"
5. 00:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "/* April 2026 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Removing "antisemitic" despite sourcing. Andre🚐 00:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• They have been making similar edits to the article about The Talmud Unmasked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Page: Kingdom of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jilligate (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. 05:42, 10 April 2026 "undid revision by Schmillians2011 (talk)"
2. 11:58, 11 April 2026 "undid revision by BathTubJesus (talk)"
3. 06:18, 13 April 2026 "undid revision by Ayothepizzahere5039 (talk)"
4. 06:40, 13 April 2026 "undid revision by Ayothepizzahere5039 (talk)"

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

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

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

Comments:

Narrow-gauge railways in Denmark Narrow-gauge railways in Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
~2026-17339-05 ~2026-17339-05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narrow-gauge_railways_in_Denmark&diff=prev&oldid=1348421246
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narrow-gauge_railways_in_Denmark&diff=prev&oldid=1348218102
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narrow-gauge_railways_in_Denmark&diff=prev&oldid=1348222106

  VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 09:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Listen you have place those things because does needs websites and links right and I have just play those things right there What iis wrong with you man, can you not handle someone no something you don't know anything about Maybe not an all so why are you removing those things please answer??? ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The sources you provided are not reliable!. The bunch of sources you are providing are either 404 error or links like Youtube or Facebook which may contain copyright issue per Wikipedia:Copyrights. Those citations are Primary sources or Self-published sources which are not accepted by wikipedia per Wikipedia:SPS. Please do not start over here as this is not the Article's talk page. Please be as per wiki-rules. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 09:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Listen you're only trying to warning yourself dude all of the administrations and see what you have been sending to me, and you have not that privilege to do that at all, is only by admins. If You Want get yourself blocked from Wikipedia just continue this way dude, I am not stopping you at all and but if that happens For You they only want to blame and that is yourself 100% dude. ~2026-17339-05 (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nagi Inoue Nagi Inoue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Minami Umezawa Minami Umezawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Asuka Saitō Asuka Saitō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
~2026-22770-98 ~2026-22770-98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) other articles affected by these two editors mentioned in the comment.

This recently created account has consistently only been doing unconstructive and disruptive edits to multiple articles and refuses to communicate despite being left several notices on their talk page of their offenses such as; Changing the VERIFIED professions of these Japanese artists Nagi Inoue, Shiori Kubo, Asuka Saitō, Minami Umezawa, Yuki Yoda, and Nanase Nishino among many others. Basically it's whole edit history has been dedicated to just changing these artists professions to what they personally believe to be their "actual" work. After I left them with several notices/warnings on their talk page, instead of refraining from the offenses, it proceeded to go anon to continue it's editing habits. Tis getting tiring manually reverting this bs. Turniner (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348594633 by Rccn (talk) + I never gave a threat but do keep in mind the laws of the land apply where you live. The laws of the land is against you at the moment. + I do not know who gives yiou right to delete statement which has sources on it on false pretence that you are the righeous asshole."
2. 11:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348593213 by GoatLordServant (talk) + As a state prosectuor I have the right. The state gives power to do my job. Please stop your threats or you will be legally accountable."
3. 11:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348592611 by GoatLordServant (talk) +It aint a threat. I am a state public prosecutor. My job is to catch liars"
4. 11:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1348584508 by Magnolia677 (talk) + NOT a possible COI editor. Keep your rants to yourself or you will be sued in the court of law. Read reply for further clarifications to your false statement on my talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear violation of 3RR, after being warned after his third revision on his user talk page, he continued edit warring with unconstructive edit summaries. There are other issues with his edits but they can be resolved on other noticeboards. Cherrytxrt 📧 12:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Page: List of paradoxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Strongwranglers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: He opened a report instead of just using the talk page. I requested the user to use the talk page many times and they refuse. They simply are not concerned with being amicable towards me. Good-faith edits are reverted, any attempts to use the talk page to discuss are ignored. I don't see this as being valuable to the process when I am willing to discuss further and the user won't engage with me. I suggest this report is closed and the user simply uses the talk page topics and the open RfC on the Talk page to engage. (Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_paradoxes#Request_for_comment:_Many_inclusions_in_this_list_are_not_actual_Paradoxes) Note: this RfC was opened before the user filed a report and they have still not commented on anything on the Talk page. Hard to engage fruitfully when 1 party wants to stonewall every other editor and then report them for trying to make good-faith changes.Strongwranglers (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Continuation:

6. . - DVdm (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)