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: 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)

Page: Gerrit van Wees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-19379-05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / ~2026-19412-29 (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:

3. Run of 7 reverting edits to be counted as a single revert.
4. Run of 5 reverting edits to be counted as a single revert. Note change of temp account.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and

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

Comments:

I do not have the ability to see IP addresses of temp accounts, and note that the fourth revert is by a different temp account. Nevertheless this is a clear  Looks like a duck to me.. Whether they deliberately rotated IP address to look like a different account or whether it just happened that way, this is the same user acting in the same manner. If necessary I'll open a case at SPI, but I am not sure if that is appropriate for IP users (prior to TAs, SPI would not confirm socks by IP).

In the spirit of full disclosure, I reverted here: after opening the talk section, and pointing out WP:WTRMT. They did not engage on talk but reverted again. I did not revert the template a second time, but made this new edit: . However I did revert a second time of just one of the reversions, here but then self reverted in their new text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Sirfurboy, "WTRMT" is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The policy against edit warring is. The requirement to obtain a consensus for including disputed content is.

Here's what you can do: Remove content you believe to be inaccurate/unverifiable. Rely on WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS to prohibit others from restoring the content without a talk page consensus.

Here's what you can not do: Repeatedly restore maintenance templates others have objected to.

There's nothing for a sockpuppetry investigation to do; I can simply treat these temporary accounts as one single person. So you have edit warred with one single person. I can block both participants or decline to take action for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I am reporting an edit war on the article List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029) involving Fedotov Andrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and suspected temporary accounts ~2026-18932-83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ~2026-19406-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The dispute centers on whether the film list should be split year-by-year or kept as a single, undivided list. All other articles in this series, including the lists for the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, use a year-by-year split for better readability and consistency across the encyclopedia.

User:~2026-19406-32 repeatedly reverts my formatting improvements to maintain an undivided list without providing a valid reason for deviating from the established project style. The user also appears to be using multiple temporary accounts to bypass the Three-Revert Rule and continue the edit war. I have attempted to communicate on his talk page to resolve this, but the user continues to revert my edits instead of engaging in a constructive discussion. I am requesting administrative intervention to stop the disruptive behavior and ensure the article remains consistent with the rest of the Warner Bros. film list series. Dasomm (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Dasomm, why are you trying to resolve a content dispute on specific users' talk pages, worse, temporary ones? Why has the article's talk page been last edited 25 days ago if there's a dispute active right now? And which part of the three revert rule says "Dasomm can freely revert more than three times"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

...Okay, I've just had a look at ~2026-19406-32's contribution list. Edit warring to remove a report against themselves from the noticeboard is disqualifying. I can't blame you for failed discussion with that user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much and to clarify, I have been careful not to exceed the three-revert limit with the same account, I came here to request intervention specifically to avoid a full edit war. Regarding the talk pages: Since I had a problem with a concrete editor and their specific reverts, I wanted to solve it with them directly. I believe that any editor, whether on a permanent or temporary account, should be willing to communicate and provide a valid reason for undoing constructive formatting. Furthermore, my formatting improvements were actually thanked by SleepyRedHair, which suggests the community prefers the consistent year-by-year split used in the 1990s–2010s lists. Dasomm (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Dasomm, you have been edit warring. Edit warring can be done without violating the three-revert rule too. That said, you have also violated the three-revert rule because it applies to you independently whose edits you revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand now. I previously thought it was better to address the editor directly if there was no activity on the talk page, but I see that was the wrong approach. I will use the talk page exclusively from now on and wait for consensus, even if it takes time. Dasomm (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and, you can of course use the talk pages of other users to invite them to an article discussion. The {{Please see}} template exists for this purpose, and WP:DISCFAIL is a helpful essay for dealing with users who ignore these notifications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Dečani operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polsko-Gruzinski (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:

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:
User repeatedly reverts content without discussion. I attempted to resolve on the talk page. User012030213 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I am responding to the report made against me. The complaint mischaracterizes my efforts to uphold Wikipedia policies and overlooks repeated policy violations by the reporting editor.

The user has repeatedly attempted to use primary sources, such as ICTY transcripts and UN reports, to synthesize outcomes of battles. Per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, editors should not interpret primary legal or diplomatic documents to reach military conclusions. Such outcomes must be cited from established secondary sources (historians, military analysts).

The reporting editor's contributions appear focused on pushing specific interpretive claims about sensitive historical/military topics using weak or primary sources, while targeting editors who enforce policy. This fits a pattern of POV-pushing and disruptive editing rather than collaborative improvement.

Another matter is one of the reporting editor's earliest interactions was contacting the Hoax User(Koqevar61) with a message along the lines of "we have a lot in common". This immediate outreach to a user with such a record is concerning and raises questions about possible coordination or shared editing patterns. While I am not opening a formal sockpuppet investigation at this time, the timing and wording warrant administrative attention under policies on disruptive editing and vandalism. Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My report is about the repeated reverts and the vandalism accusation.

I agree that primary sources should be used carefully. My point was that the ICTY and UN material did NOT support a strong outcome like "Yugoslav victory" without better secondary sourceing. User012030213 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

UN and ICTY are not reliable for the battle outcomes as i have said but to no avail. If you know that you are breaking the rules as you said on the talk page and interpret every outcome as fluid i dont have another word for it except vandalism. You forgot that you too reverted three or more times so i think we should both be blocked or sanctioned. I think that is the most fair result for this matter. I will leave this matter to admins. Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My edits were not vandalism and I did not say that every outcome is "fluid". I said that stronger wording like "Yugoslav victory" should only be used if it is clearly supported by reliable sources. I agree that UN and ICTY material should be used carefully, but in this case my point was that the current outcome wording goes beyond what the sourcing clearly supports. specijalne-jedinice.com is not a reliable source.

My report is about repeated reverts and the vandalism accusation, not about personal motives. User012030213 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The article has its academic sources and bibliography, which you deleted for unknown reasons and without explanation in the section for the description of the change, it is pure vandalism, and you have done it several times. That source that you deliberately mentioned because all the others are valid is just a follow up and I will delete it so that the remaining completely valid sources remain. I think that the administrator and other members of the community are not interested in the fact that you have personal problems against me, please use official sources from the CIA - Balkan Battlegrounds or others that deal with the war itself, because the sources you mentioned are subject to manipulation and border on the rules of WP. Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not remove content as vandalism. I removed material because parts of it were not clearly supported by the cited sources, including the added detail about the body and suicide, and because the current outcome wording goes beyond what the sourcing clearly supports. Calling that “vandalism” is not accurate.

This is a sourcing dispute, not a personal issue. I am trying to use reliable and neutral sources, but you are trying to make this personal and i have seen that i am not the first person you have revered mulitiple times. I will use continue to use soruces such as the UN and ICTY where appropriate, i am not limited to using what you are demanding me to use. Any source has to be used carefully and all are subject to manipulation, which is why the wording should stay close to what the source clearly states. User012030213 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

When you use AI to generate this answers then be consistent with it. You have deleted the academic source that was clearly saying that Yugoslav forces retook the city from the KLA, you have deleted it without any explanation and tried to manipulate the result with sources that were talking about the Metohija part of Kosovo in general not the specific operation or town. It is interesting how you confessed that you used original reserach, but later on(now) you say that you used them as a "reliable source". So its clear that you have lied and you listed here WP rules to sound more legitimate to the community. It is personal to me since you reported me without valid reasons and you warned me after reporting me. I am waiting for your explation for messaging the account that writes like you and edits 1/1 like you, for all users its clear situation. Polsko-Gruzinski (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not “confess” to using original research. Tell me where i "confessed". You are misrepresenting what I said. Like i have been saying many times but you are avoding looking at it since you know you are wrong was that sources like the UN and ICTY must be used carefully and that the article wording should not go beyond what the sources clearly support. The UN itself noted that control of territory was fluid during the war, which is exactly why wording such as “Yugoslav victory” and sweeping territorial claims need clear source support for this specific operation.

The issue is not my edits, but the article wording going beyond what the sources clearly say. You accused me of vandalism and reverting instead of discussing the issue on the talk page. Which account that writes like me and edits 1/1 like me are you even talking about? User012030213 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-77919-7 (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. 22:04, 22:06 19 March 2026 / 00:38 20 March 2026 (initial addition)
2. 03:34 24 March 2026
3. 01:08 25 March 2026
4. 04:54 25 March 2026
5. 13:08 29 March 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (initial uw-ewsoft, which the user did respond to), (uw:3rr)

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

Comments:

This editor has been engaged in a slow edit war, and despite engaging initially on their talk page when advised to discuss their edits with others they habe since fallen silent. I personally wish to disengage from the dispute, and would appreciate it if someone would remind the editor of their reslonsibility to discuss disputed edits. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)