Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page: Ali Larijani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "Didn't reported to Khanenei, other Wiki articles include de facto leaderships too"
2. 21:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "Other sources affirm it, will add them."
3. 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "Not speculative anymore."
4. 21:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:49, 17 March 2026
2. 21:58, 17 March 2026

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "/* De facto leader */ Reply"
2. 21:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "/* De facto leader */ Reply"

Comments:

Repeated re-addition of "Leader of Iran" position to infobox despite reversions by at least three users (including myself) and no consensus on talk. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Because there wasn't ever a consensus, maybe? MarketFruit (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this has been resolved; @MarketFruit has now stopped reverting and has expressed acceptance of the emerging consensus. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

MarketFruit, are you aware of the following policy?

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

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. MarketFruit (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

MarketFruit, why did you ignore it then? You said above "there wasn't ever a consensus" yet you restored the material repeatedly. It seems that either you were unaware of the policy or you intentionally ignored it in this case. If there's a reason for that, please share it. I'd like to close this without action but I can't do so if there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again elsewhere. A good reason would be you having learned about a policy or you having had a specific reason unique to this situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Because there wasn't a consensus then, there was still a discussion. MarketFruit (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I even wrote in . MarketFruit (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

MarketFruit, the meaning of that policy sentence is that as long as there is no consensus, you may not restore the material. Those who want to include the content must wait until a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh then I misunderstood it, english is not my first language. MarketFruit (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

All good and no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: No action needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Marvel's Netflix television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hatim . 1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC) "Irrerelevent"
2. 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC) "/* top */by erasing irrelevant information"
3. 05:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "Irrerelevent"
4. 02:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC) "/* top */additional information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Marvel's Netflix television series."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly not listening to fellow editors and reverting with the same automatic summary. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I'd unblock directly on request and without many questions asked, but I want them to notice the existence of their talk page and to start their first conversation with anyone on Wikipedia by creating an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Premier League Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowflake91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)I dont like cricket I love it (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:
This is being attempted to be resolved. There are though threats by the other user to continue the edit warring. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Conflict resolution has failed. Users have devolved into pointless argument. Admin intervention requested. 「NuggFrog」 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that is the case. If anything just needs a third opinion here.

I think you are being far too pessimistic after just a few hours of discussion, and no one else taking part. Just get a third party to take a look that should resolve things. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

First you report this minor content dispute here, and then when the content dispute is actually being actively discussed at the talk, you came back here because it's not resolved within 30 minutes or what ? And by the way, per notice at the top of this page: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." - no one reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hours span, so this was wrongly reported in the first place, it was reverted 3 times on 15 March, and then just twice on 19 March, which is 5 times over the period of over 4 days. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say here?

You do not have clean hands making the allegations you have made and if I were you I’d leave that well alone.

Additionally I did not file this report here. This is another inaccuracy to add to the very long list of inaccuracies you are claiming to be immutable fact. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I was CLEARLY replying to the one that opened this report and not to you, so stop hallucinating. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, regardless of whether or not there was a 3RR violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Pages: Missouri Tigers men's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Missouri Tigers men's basketball seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Missouri Tigers football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported: Pappyjoel (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is repeatedly adding unsourced claims regarding national championships that are not officially claimed by the university. I have attempted to engage the user on their talk page here, but they have ignored the discussion and continued to revert to their preferred version. They are currently behaving as a Single-Purpose Account and violating WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hinklehomie (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Dhurandhar: The Revenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KabirDH (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 14:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC) to 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 14:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Again. RV vandalism"
   2. 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "source removed due to possible political bias. Check talk page"
2. 13:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "RV vandalism. No neutral source describing film as "propaganda""
3. 12:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 10:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "RV vandalism"
5. 07:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "RV vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Systematically removing sourced content by falsely labelling it as "vandalism". THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 15:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please check the talk page. KabirDH (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Royal Challengers Bengaluru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sachink11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344346663 by Jpeeling (talk)"
2. 20:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344164725 by Jpeeling (talk)"
3. 19:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344164359 by Jpeeling (talk)"
4. 15:39, 18 March 2026

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Royal Challengers Bengaluru."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "/* March 2026 */ new section"
2. 14:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "/* March 2026 */ Reply"

Comments:

Makes unilateral changes and keeps edit warring despite multiple warnings. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Though they stopped edit warring in this specific article (for now) after the 3RR warrning (13:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)), they continued doing so in various other articles-Globe Soccer Awards, Ballon d'Or, also see Deccan Chargers, Chennai Super Kings and Indian Premier League, despite multiple warnings. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

With this undo action, they ignored the level 4 NPOV warning. Annh07 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There is clearly a failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, perhaps veering into an issue of WP:NOTHERE. Annh07 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the user is still continuing with disruptive edits. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Google Stadia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-16432-83 (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 20:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC) to 20:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 20:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) to 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 20:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Keep This Please"
   3. 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 20:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 19:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "The wordmark ain't a logo"
5. 18:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Google Stadia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked for evading ~2026-11615-04's block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Vijaya (bow) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Raj7383848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344495864 by Plasticwonder (talk)"
2. 20:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344494637 by Plasticwonder (talk) source- Karna Parva (Section 91) (bori critical edition)) 9"
3. 20:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344493617 by SirJustinfranklin (talk) In puranas (BORI CRITICAL) it was directly say it grant it user victory thus invincibility in mahabharata krishna himself say to arjuna to strike karna when he put down vijaya to pull his chariot. get basic imformation american citizen"
4. 20:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 20:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Vijaya article */ new section"
3. 20:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Vijaya article */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User insisted on adding the following without a source:

"It say it grant it user invincibility as long they hold it."

In one of their edit summaries they mention the religious text "Karna Parva (Section 91) (bori critical edition)" yet they did not mention this in the article proper, nor did they at least fix the text to be more encyclopedic.

The user does at all not clarify who says what, thus they were reverted by me and another user. I assumed good faith and encouraged them to cite their source, wherein they threatened to "report" me (for what I have zero clue). I have also given them a chance to revert themselves and explain their edits, to no avail.

During our discussion, the user did not convince me that their additions were backed by solid sources, and their response to my concerns of original research is also worth noting. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 20:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir i have already provide source :- Krishna

's command to

Arjuna

to strike

Karna

occurs in the

Karna Parva

of the Mahabharata, specifically in

Section 91 KMG

(or

Chapter 67

in the

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) Critical Edition

) युद्धस्य सप्तदशे दिवसे तयोः अन्तिमयुद्धे शापवशात् कर्णस्य रथचक्रं पृथिव्यां निमग्नम् अभवत्। कर्णः स्वस्य अभेद्यं धनुः त्यक्त्वा चक्रं निष्कासयितुं रथात् अवतीर्णवान्। सः धर्मनियमान् स्मरन् अर्जुनं प्रार्थितवान् यत् यावत् सः निःशस्त्रः असहायः च अस्ति तावत् युद्धं स्थगयेत् इति। translation :- During their final duel on the 17th day of the war, Karna's chariot wheel sinks into the earth due to a curse. Karna descends from his chariot to extricate the wheel, placing his invincible bow aside and appealing to the rules of Dharma (righteousness), asking Arjuna to pause the fight while he is unarmed and disadvantaged.

here mentioned अभेद्यं धनुः (Abhedyam dhanuh): Invincible bow. And BORI CE is officially considered the closest to authentic version of Mahabharat. It took 47 years to be made and is yet under construction, they keep adding and removing parts.

Also same thing is mentioned in KMG Raj7383848 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Traditional Thai clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Template:Hotgas

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I want to point out that on the 19th, Hotgas made two separate edits to add 'Fit for a King' and 'Indic Impetus?' so I performed two separate Undo actions which put me to four edits for the 19th. But I didn't realize he made the two separate edits. So if you want to block me for 24 hours I understand but I wasn't trying to do two revisions, I just didn't realize they were two edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Thai_clothing&diff=prev&oldid=1344207576 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Thai_clothing&diff=next&oldid=1344211352

So Hotgas is already partly blocked from Dance in Thailand for the same behavior. I explained twice that the references do not support the claims made and even broke it down by addressing each reference used and why. User Yufayens, who is also editing the article, also used the references in good faith but they accepted it once I pointed out they don't support the content. They even thanked me. Last night I posted on the Traditional Thai Clothing Talk Page and broke it all down yet again. But all Hotgas did was reply with bizarre comments about me coming from southern China and how I "need to accept" the chong kben comes from the dhoti. This is the second or third time an editor made nasty comments assuming I'm Khmer (I'm guessing that's what it is). But I just replied that he has to back a claim with a source on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonsMoon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)