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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Declined as stale. The last edits doing this happened two weeks ago. If this is a recurring problem, better to take it to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 21 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)

• This user has now made 5th revert. Zalaraz (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Declined This one I'm declining on an IAR basis since I don't think it's in keeping with the spirit of policy to block an editor repeatedly reverting edits during ongoing discussion on the talk page in order to preserve the status quo, especially when the editor being reverted is not participating in the talk page discussion. Really, this should be part of WP:3RRNO.

IF another admin disagrees, they may take whatever action they see fit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I would urge you to check again. See the talk page. Enough editors have responded and refuted the argument of the reported editor, including by admin Black Kite. How WP:3RRNO applies when none of the editors were socking or engaging in vandalism? There is no rule that says "I can revert until I am convinced". 5 reverts just to remove sourced content supported by majority editors and terming them as "vandalism" is an outright violation of both WP:NPA and WP:3RR. Zalaraz (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zalaraz: My apologies ... I had, in all my review, gotten the reporting and reported editor confused. While I stand behind what I wrote above, that editors who don't participate in discussion yet continue to revert to their preferred version and then report the editor(s) reverting back to the original are not acting in good faith and so no edit-war report by them can be taken seriously, this is not the case here. It is as you have described. So ...

• Partially blocked from Dhurandhar: The Revenge indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 21 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)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While the edits complained of here did not violate 3RR, a review of the user's recent history shows that this sort of edit warring right up to that line is a pattern (almost deliberately, it would seem) that cannot be allowed to continue. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 21 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)

Blocked indefinitely NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Traditional Thai clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotgas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Partially blocked from Traditional Thai clothing indefinitely for reverting during discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344644187 by TonySt (talk) the information I have put on is more detailed than ever stop undoing it!"
2. 18:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344643757 by Arjayay (talk) Mero lado Kha Muji @Arjayay randi ko chora"
3. 18:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1344642173 by Arjayay (talk)"
4. 18:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC) "It's Khukuri (खुकुरी) not Kukri. I would like the page handler to not reset the changes and renamed the page title to "Khukuri" from "Kukri""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC) "Regarding edits to Kukri (uw-ewsoft)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor repeatedly restoring their preferred version. tony 18:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: OHSAA Northeast Region athletic conferences

User being reported: User:Elitekidd

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have made numerous requests on talk pages, to have him please stop making edits to the page regarding FUTURE conferences and end dates, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This article should only feature conferences that are set to begin within this calendar year, most of the conferences he's trying to add and end dates being tried to add takes place 3-5 years from now, which could easily fall apart by next year, while in good faith, I have made numerous requests for him to stop, which my edits have been reverted quite a few times, despite attempts to stop it. Already warned if it wouldn't stop I would take it to noticeboards.

I am not the first user to request that he refrain from making future edits regarding the future. Editor has edit warred a previous user as well. JLN2026 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Artemis Andromeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Artemis Andromeda is very clearly in violation of WP:3RR on Jan Stopyra (a page they created and feel they WP:OWN). The page currently list fifty one categories, a very clear example of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. I tagged the page as such in Special:Diff/1344704434. User reverted in Special:Diff/1344704801 claiming I think categories are fine. Despite my explanation on their talk page, user has continued to restore "their" version of the page. Violating both WP:3RR AND WP:OWN as well as removing maintenance templates from an article THEY created without making any attempt to address the issue. This violates at least 3 different policies. I will not make any additional changes to Jan Stopyra to avoid BOOMERANG but request admin intervention due to the multiple policy violations by this user. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I did not intend to start a "edit war", nor any drama. I did state, I belive categories are fine. About "without making any attempt to address the issue", I did wrote to you will be more than happy to discuss which categories your take issue with, and look for solutions, which you never responded to instead just slaping me with a copy pasted warrning. I do not belive personally categories in the current article are a problem since they all are revelation to the information in the article. But I'm happy to discuss this issue and find a solution. Also, honestly, on personal note, accusing people of bad behaviour, after they spend half a day reaserching and writing an article, is not very nice. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I will point out a few things:

1. Artemis only posted said agreement to discuss the categories after already violating the above policies and still has not restored the maintenance template they removed.
2. The fact that Artemis spent half a day reaserching (sic) and writing an article is completely irrelevant to the fact that they violated policy and infact further bolsters the fact that they feel they WP:OWN the article as they have worked so hard on it.
3. Not sure what copy pasted warrning (sic) they are referring to, but again does nothing to excuse their multiple policy violations.

Not going to respond further as I don't see the need to clobber the discussion, but should a third party have questions, please {{ping|Zackmann08}} me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel WP:OWN of an article, as I know how Wikipedia works. Just voicing my opinion about my feelings in the current situation. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Update Qwerty123M attempted to help resolved the issue with Special:Diff/1344708798, removing some of the many categories. Artemis immediately reverted the change with Special:Diff/1344709070/1344709758. So now they are edit warring with 2 separate editors, DESPITE Hving already been warned and this discussion being ongoing. They claim not to be violating WP:OWN, actions say differently... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you need to to get a third opinion from a more knowledgeable editor? Qwerty123M (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: you WERE a third opinion and still got reverted... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Respectively, how is that edit warring? I did not revert everything, were not disruptive, and did justify in my my edit description, why I believe those specific categories should stay.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I really do not want to start edit war, not to be labeled as "troubling" editor. I did not attempt to make it into an edit war or make it seem as I'm reverting everything. I did state in my edit comment why I brought back those categories. I'm just trying to have an objective discussion on what should or should not stay Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Artemis Andromeda, thank you very much for writing the article about Jan Stopyra. When content is disputed, the following policy applies:

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

There is no discussion at Talk:Jan Stopyra, the article's talk page yet, so I can't find a consensus for restoring the disputed categories there. Without such a consensus, the content may not be restored.

You wrote the article but you submitted it under a free license to an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it's fine for others to remove categories at very least until a discussion concludes with a consensus for restoring them.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  PS: Zackmann08, I generally ignore the exact number of reverts as that leads nowhere, but if you insist in a "very clear" violation of the three-revert rule, you should at least count correctly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: totally valid. I felt that it was pretty clear that if I tried again, I would be the one the one in violation and risked WP:BOOMERANG, hence the reason I ceased editing the page in question and came here. What I find confusing about your decision is that two separate editors attempted to address this issue of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, both myself and Qwerty123M. We both were reverted by Artemis a combined total of 3 times: (1, 2 & 3). Now I will acknowledge that the 3rd revert happened AFTER my claim of a very clear WP:3RR violation. Your point there is 100% valid. However, as Artemis is pretty clearly the one in the wrong here (unless I am seriously missing something) I'm confused as to why the result here was to Page Protect to the admin level instead of a page block for the user who (in the end) violated WP:3RR, WP:OWN and removed maintenance templates (with no change/improvement) from the page they created.

  Now I have no intention of making further edits to this page but I just find it an odd way to resolve the issue and urge you to reconsider. I will also hope you will keep an eye on the page as I fully expect that as soon as the protection expires, the removed categories will be restored. But maybe that is an issue to deal with if/when it happens? I defer to your judgement as admin. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Zackmann08, I chose 3 hours of page protection (of a revision not containing the disputed content) instead of a block because it was the smallest possible actual admin action that could be applied to stop the dispute. Your approach to their newly created article was already confrontative enough; adding a block would have made the article creation experience a hostile one. I would apply a partial block if Artemis Andromeda restores categories immediately after the full protection expires, but that would then also be a far more justifiable block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: thank you for the explanation. You did not need to give me one and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to do so. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Unified Payments Interface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CBum 6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:07–16:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC) reverted edits by Zalaraz on 31 January 2026
2. 19:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC) reverted Koshuri Sultan
3. 09:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC) reverted Zalaraz, 10:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC) reverted Wisher08
4. 10:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC) reverted Koshuri Sultan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Unified Payments Interface#Use or not in Nepal, the UK, Russia, and Ceylon

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 10:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

---- Toddy1 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments:

I would like to clarify my actions regarding the reported reverts. My edits were aimed at restoring sourced content that had been removed without prior discussion or adequate justification. I acknowledge that multiple reverts were made in a short period, and I understand concerns regarding edit warring.

However, I have also initiated discussion on the article’s talk page (see linked section) to seek consensus. The content in question is supported by reliable sources and relates to documented usage and agreements. Its removal was repeatedly labeled as ‘irrelevant’ without clear policy-based reasoning.

Going forward, I will refrain from further reverts and focus on resolving the dispute through talk page discussion in line with Wikipedia’s consensus-based editing approach. CBum 6 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This user is also edit warring on India in the 2026 Iran war in contravention to ECR restriction on Arab Israeli conflict.

Zalaraz (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)