Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page: 2025 Singaporean general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 06:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2025 Singaporean general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. No diff as it is a first edit on talkpage - Attempt to engage

Comments:

Editor performed 3RR. While the edits are out of 3RR guideline of 48 hours, there was no response via edit summaries or response to my message on TXDCJ's talkpage. I believe that TXDCJ will just check Wikipedia every few days and keep reverting. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

TXDCJ did not respond and continue to edit war with 00:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Note the edit war is on two pages (Workers' Party (Singapore)) and editor has since solely been edit warring on these two pages. ~ JASWE (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, TXDCJ continued edit warring after block lifted.

1. 07:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC) for 2025 Singaporean general election
2. 07:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC) for Workers' Party (Singapore)

~ JASWE (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours With a warning that the next time is strike three. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Restore Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "membership"
2. 13:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "re-added membership"
3. 13:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "Member numbers re-added. This still provides the most recent numbers claimed by restore, whether you agree with their politics or not."
4. 09:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "Added membership number back, as there is no reason to remove this number"
5. 11:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC) "Added links to support membership number claims"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Restore Britain."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Declined as stale. While I would have blocked had I reviewed this when it was fresher, two days have gone by and the user has taken to the talk page. Blocks are not meant to be punitive; it would accomplish nothing here to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Johan Cruyff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Michael G. Lind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345219818 by Spike 'em (talk)"
2. 00:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345219214 by Spike 'em (talk) I do not see a third opinion"
3. 00:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345215861 by Spike 'em (talk) You don't have contributed to anything here. Search for a Third opinion"
4. 21:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345166025 by Spike 'em (talk)"
5. 14:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345006502 by Eem dik doun in toene (talk) Not viable argument, as shown."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Undid version once again */ Reply"
2. 23:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Undid version once again */Sp"
3. 00:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Undid version once again */ Reply"
4. 01:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Undid version once again */ Reply"
5. 10:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Undid version once again */ add links"

Comments:

User seems unwilling to listen to multiple other editors and is resorting to personal insults in talk page edits. Spike 'em (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

To summarise this: Eem dick doun in toene repeatedly undid several versions of mine and he refused all attempts to talk to him until yesterday.

Then he wanted to delete the entire section in question because he felt the author's statement (Kuper) was not neutral.

I tried very hard to explain to him that the statement of a relevant author doesn't have to be neutral. It is the opinion of the author.

In historical writing, it's permissible to reproduce controversial statements. The opinion of a relevant author is sacrosanct; not everyone has to share it. Where would we end up if we removed Robert Blake simply because he considered Disraeli a genius?

Otherwise, he might get the idea to delete statements by historians who describe Hitler and Stalin as criminals.

I wouldn't put it past him, judging by his “argument”.

He didn’t answer, but undid the version once again, now he switched tactics.

He deleted it again, this time citing the article's length as the reason. My arguments that the excessive use of a zillion internet links for one source should have been deleted instead (and that I had already shortened the text), fell completely on deaf ears.

If it's only about length, then it must be said that I deleted a lot of unnecessary and duplicate content, sometimes mentioned not only twice, but in three sections. The final version, as I envision it, is going to be shorter than the one before I started to edit.

Anyway, the supposed length of the article. Who actually decides that an article is too long? That's a matter of opinion. If we stick with football: There's obviously not much to write about a team like Crystal Palace; a stub should be enough. Ajax Amsterdam or Bayern Munich is a different story. You don't need to write much about Rockingham either, but Thatcher or Gladstone deserve a lenghty assessment. So, the length is variable and has to be variable.

Regarding the section in question, I also made several compromise proposals and offered to delete some sources and further shorten the section in question. This was also rejected; everything has to be deleted. This is completely incomprehensible, because if one were to actually read the article, it would be clear that X (=Kuper/Winner/Wilson for this matter) is a primary source and therefore belongs in that section. That's how I was taught, and my training wasn't the worst.

Then he called Spiek'em for help. Neither of them contributed anything to the article.

However, it should be noted that while the section in question is deleted, there is also insistence that I insert it into a different, new section “Legacy” or soemthing like that. So it's clearly not about the length at all; it's about being right and the length-argument is just a pretext to harass me.

I should point out once again, some user seemingly are unable to read or understand that) all my edits here are simply a translation of my article on the German Wikipedia. The article there is one of my Excellent (= Featured one) ones and was yesterday's article of the day. So I know how to write good articles.

What I have added are documented facts, supported by reputable literature (several sports book of the year in the Sunday Times).

If someone wants to delete this, they must provide credible evidence. Thanks, reputable third opinion awaited. Michael G. Lind (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

There's obviously not much to write about a team like Crystal Palace; a stub should be enough. What on earth has this got to do with Johan Cruyff? Spike 'em (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Then he called Spiek'em for help., nope he asked for help at WT:FOOTY#3RR. He thought you had breached WP:3RR which you have certainly done now. Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

some user seemingly are unable to read or understand that) all my edits here are simply a translation of my article on the German Wikipedia

I assume this is referring to me? As far as I can see, you had not stated^{(And so, it would be unreasonable for me to assume,)} that you copied the content from the German page to the English one. Instead, you only stated that you had produced the German version of the article

• The article in full, as I wrote it, is already a featured article in the german wikipedia
• my article is today's featured article there

I cannot see where you wrote that you translated the content from Germany to English (not that it really matters at this point) JordyGrey _talk 00:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Michael G. Lind, I don't know what you think that wall of text was going to do in a case where you were accused of edit warring, which you undoubtedly did. If you continue this after the block runs out you will be blocked for longer, at least from the article--or so my crystal ball suggests. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Hannah Cairo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-18015-62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345285614 by DanielRigal (talk)"
2. 07:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1345195628 by ESkog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Transgender status */ new section"

Comments:

I believe User:~2026-18392-94 may be linked as well; both are removing the same sentence with an incorrect claim that it's unsourced. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  If I'm reading timestamps correctly, that happened about six minutes after I posted this. I was a little unsure whether to use here, ANI, or even AIV for this, though Sesquilinear (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, when I saw it here, I added page protection, so even WP:RFPP would have been an option. It's okay to report edit warring here, it's less okay to report this non-vandalism at WP:AIV even if it would have led to action there, ANI would have been correct but unspecific ... Of all the options, for the given case, due to the lack of urgency, the clear edit warring, the stubborn but good-faith nature of the edits and the usual backlog at RFPP, I'd say bringing it here was the best option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Saya no Uta: The Song of Saya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

05:46, 22 March 2026

16:04, 23 March 2026

05:06, 25 March 2026

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:09, 25 March 2026

02:11, 25 March 2026

23:51, 22 March 2026

06:28, 4 March 2026

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Saya no Uta: The Song of Saya#In regard to the constant removal of the lolicon genre tag

Comments:

User is trying to edit war and is now starting to break the 24 hour rule to keep control over the article. Seeing that me making a 4th revert in such a short time would likely break the edit war rule, even if the 24 hour window is respected, I am taking it to here for an admin to look over and take action.

The user did try to pull the conversation into the talk page first, but in retrospect I suspect it was actually a way to keep the article from changing, which then lead to the following:

I have already provided evidence in the talk page supporting my claims, which ranges from in-game screenshots, subcultural terms (even regionally to Japan), examples of those terms in practice within other forms of arts and japanese series with how it relates back to the subject in question and even promotions on japanese websites relating back to the character's body type as well as official websites managed by the developers themselves in Japan and referencing the Wikipedia article on Lolicon itself, while the user in question has argued "vibes", using deflections, personal thoughts and experiences in place of solid evidence, instigating that interest in the subculture's fiction means interest in real life criminal intent, moving goalposts and then claiming it doesn't count when I argue along with where the goalpost was set, snarky rephrasings of what I said to redefine them in ways I didn't say rather than to poke much needed holes in my arguments, snarky insulting comments and ignoring evidence that was provided comments ago, including Wikipedia's own pages, while telling me I talk too much in the section called the "talk" page, where discussion he pulled me into was suppose to be had, before insulting me for engaging in such a way, while his behavior puts me into a belief that he is not arguing in good faith really early into the talk post as a result of ignoring the in-game text and artwork alone.

He has also instigating "Appeal to Majority" fallacy. claiming people disagreeing that the tag must stay are bigger than what I was arguing and the evidence I provided, when said "majority" has not provided significant evidence (such as claiming immorality or treating legal deflection jargon from foreign licenced publishers as in-universal fact), nor was an formal vote held or known to be held by the other two counter-claimers.

Considering the evidence I did provide kept getting dismissed by him even when it was strong, I started to feel it was better to just leave evidence regardless if I convince him or not due to his erratic behavior as I know our talk will be seen beyond just the two of us, while also starting to express what I felt was actually going on based off of his behavior and recent internet trends out of frustration.

Page protected In full for three days so you can bring your talk page discussion to a resolution. Feel free to bring in other people; neither of you violated 3RR so we can't take action on those grounds. But we could block you both for edit warring if you keep this slow-motion thing going. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

So what happens if nothing is resolved in those 3 days? It already took almost a month to get to this point and I don't have high confidence he is going to listen, considering his behavior turned to personal attacks based on morals over sense on multiple instances instead of sticking by the book while ignoring anything that's longer than a tweet.

Additionally I don't have connections, so I don't know the extent to how get more people into the conversation.

As someone who does gets rather deep into otaku subculture, I am confident in my assessments.

I wanna do the article itself, and the Visual Novel it is based on, proper informational justice, but with the topics at hand in the visual novel and this new internet culture of pretending to be interest in something for popularity while simultaneously shuning what's inside it, I am lacking confidence that this is going to go anywhere. If the in game screenshots I linked to in the talk page aren't enough to prove the point then I don't know what is.

Personally I don't wanna be banned for trying to be genuinely helpful and keeping the article honest... Samalik16 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest you post a notice at WT:ANIME, asking for others knowledgeable about the work in question, or just anime generally, to come and weigh in. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: India in the 2026 Iran war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: King Ayan Das (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: warned of 1rr rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
King Ayan Das is repeatedly removing attributed content by misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on the talkpage, they have already made their intentions clear that they seek to escalate the edit war until they get their preferred version by saying they will continually revert after 24 hours have passed on an article under 1RR without regard for any admin intervention against them . This is a clear violation of the remedy in spirit. Wisher08 (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I received a notice regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious, on my user talk page at 02:28, 25 March 2026.

After that I made 2 edits to the India in the 2026 Iran war article.

These were,

at 19:24, 25 March 2026, while the last revert before that was at 17:39, 24 March 2026 (which not only exceeds the 24-hour cycle but also exceeds it by more than one hour)

,and my second and latest revert was at 09:09, 27 March 2026, which exceeds the 24-hour period by more than 12 hours

So, it clearly shows that after receiving the notice regarding contentious, I did not violate the 1RR rule. And for the implementation of WP:BRD in the presence of many Edit ninjas (WP:EDITNINJAS), I had to take some actions that Wikipedia policies allow. Whether the content is legitimate or not is subject to community consensus, but this noticeboard is only for WP:3RR/WP:1RR violations, and I have already shown that I did not violate any such restrictions after receiving the contentious topic notice. King Ayan Das (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello King Ayan Das, what makes you think that WP:BRD is a policy that needs to be enforced? Is there something above WP:BRD that says "policy"? "Guideline"? Anything else than "optional" or "essay"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

(Also, "EDITNINJAS"? Really? Can you stop linking to essays and we have a discussion about policies and guidelines? You could start by explaining which policy or guideline justified your behavior.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No! it is a guideline, not an essay, which is WP:NEWSOPED. As I have noticed, the source is an op-ed written by a random author who is neither a notable figure nor a recognized expert. The content is written as- "According to <source>," whereas if the author was notable, even then, as it is an op-ed, it should be written as “according to <author’s name>.”

Although I have some other issues as well, this is the main issue behind my latest revert for now. If you want more details, you can read this: Talk:India in the 2026 Iran war#Cycle.

Now tell me, even after pointing out these issues in my edit summary, when many editors seem more interested in bringing back that content instead of addressing my objections on the talk page, what should I do? Should I just give up and move to another page, or at least try to resolve these issues? King Ayan Das (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Due to the (lack of) indentation, I'm not sure which of my messages exactly your "No!" is a reply to.

Anyway: The edit summary of Special:Diff/1345650690 makes no sense. BRD is an essay. Stop treating it as something enforceable by reverts. All you are doing is edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wisher08, you write "attributed content" as if that, by itself, was automatically a reason to include material. Are you aware of the following policy section?

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content.
— Wikipedia:Verifiability § Build consensus

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I said "attributed" because their reasons for removing the content are at best misrepresentation of the policies to completely deny the inclusion of the attributed content on filmsy grounds. If their concern hidden behind all the incorrect notions of policies, only amounts to that attribution is given as "according to publication" rather as "according to author", which could be fixed by editing yet they revert incessantly and remove the content by insisting on following the uneforceable BRD cycle as if its mandatory.

I also agree as to the fact that their reasons for reverting repeatedly are also similarly based in misinterpretation of BRD as a policy rather than a suggestion as to how the consensus forming process should work. Thanks. Wisher08 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article (DAR.45m). I have been attempting to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY with other established Indian Railways articles (like SMVT Bengaluru–Balurghat Express, Bhanjpur–Puri Express, Hatia–Durg Express, Tambaram–Tiruchchirappalli Express, Mangaluru–Tirunelveli Express, Shalimar–Chennai Central Express, Ernakulam–Velankanni Express (via Tiruchchirappalli)). User:Bushmaster26 has repeatedly added large amounts of unsourced or unnecessary information and has reverted my attempts to restore the standard version.

Crucially, the user is repeatedly labeling my constructive edits as "vandalism " in their edit summaries, which is a violation of WP:NOTVAND. I have explicitly asked the user in my edit summary at 15:40 to use the Talk page per WP:BRD, but he immediately reverted again at 15:41 without discussion. This is clear Edit Warring and disruptive behavior.

Diffs for the reverts :

• Revert 1 (11:07):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agartala%E2%80%93Narangi_Express&diff=next&oldid=1345663585

• Revert 2 (15:09):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agartala%E2%80%93Narangi_Express&oldid=1345689508

• Revert 3 (15:41):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agartala%E2%80%93Narangi_Express&oldid=1345693272 DAR.45m (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The user has created the article with only 3 citations. The article created by the user contains poor phrasing, less content with very few sources (only 3). So I added proper content with better phrasing (for instance the introduction, Background section of my revision (1) and also with 9 more citations from reliable sources. My revision, 2, contains 12 citations supporting additional content added by me, which follows WP:CONSISTENCY, for instance Chennai Rajdhani Express, Hazrat Nizamuddin–Thiruvananthapuram Rajdhani Express, Howrah–New Delhi Rajdhani Express (via Patna), Dibrugarh–Kanniyakumari Vivek Express, Mumbai Central–New Delhi Tejas Rajdhani Express, August Kranti Rajdhani Express, etc.

The user mentioned various train articles to prove WP:CONSISTENCY but all these articles were created by the user in the span of last 2 months like SMVT Bengaluru–Balurghat Express, Bhanjpur–Puri Express, Hatia–Durg Express, Tambaram–Tiruchchirappalli Express, Mangaluru–Tirunelveli Express, Shalimar–Chennai Central Express, Ernakulam–Velankanni Express (via Tiruchchirappalli). All these articles contains less contents, few citations which are not from reliable sources. In all these articles the user didn't maintained WP:CONSISTENCY like addition of 'File:Ministry of Railways India.svg' logo. The user is referring to his own created articles in the span of last two months to prove WP:CONSISTENCY, whereas none of the previous created train articles, including those major train articles mentioned by me, follows that body. The user repeatedly reverted my edits where the user removed 9 citations from reliable sources, background section, train image, Coach composition section, Traction section, Schedule section and also the Template of this train. Now the background section, traction all are cited with reliable sources, still the user removed all these in his following revision; 3, 4, 5. And coach composition, schedule sections follows indiarailinfo website in every major train articles. Bushmaster26 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Bushmaster26, you need to get your terminology correct.

• You have linked to "WP:CONSISTENCY" four times, yet that shortcut points to a disambiguation page instead of a specific policy, guideline or essay. You use these capital letters as if they had any special meaning beyond the simple word "consistency", yet they do not, so can you please just write normal English and – if you really need to – simply put the link behind the word ("I did so for consistency") or refer to a policy section explicitly ("the consistency section of the article titles policy"). It looks so much more professional and correct. Spend 10 seconds instead of 5 seconds on writing readable sentences instead of walls of meaningless capital letters.
• If you want to provide a long list of article links, put them in a bulleted list instead of a huge sentence.
• You appear to have described good-faith edits as "vandalism", which they are not. This creates completely unnecessary animosity and implies the user is a vandal, which is a personal attack when you are wrong about it. And you are wrong about it in this case.

DAR.45m, please resolve this through discussion with Bushmaster26. You have not yet edited the article's talk page, Talk:Agartala–Narangi Express, but doing so is not optional when there is a conflict (unless you completely disengage from the situation). If you had used the click here to create a new report link at the top of this page, you'd have noticed that you were unable to fill one of the form fields because you have not attempted to resolve this on the article's talk page yet. I'll close the report for this reason.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly restoring vandalism, which I have reverted. Swordfish121,641 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Unborn Child (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-19126-29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 21:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 21:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC) "Fixed evil phrasing"
4. 21:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC) "Verbage correction again."
5. 21:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC) "Verbage correction"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Unborn Child."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)