Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User: Bloxzge 025 reported by User:Mikewem (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2025 Boulder fire attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloxzge 025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5] previous version is [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bloxzge 025#June 2, 2025 informal warning, did not use template, nor invoke 1RR/3RR

[7] ctop alert for 1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2025 Boulder fire attack#Motive Talk:2025 Boulder fire attack#statement fails verification

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

There are other edits from Bloxzge 025 on this page that could be reverts, but these 5 are the most straightforward. Additionally, the editor appears to have made 4 reverts to List of terrorist incidents in 2025 within the same past 24 hour period. Mikewem (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Shuaib Shukri Alias reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

Page: Benz (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shuaib Shukri Alias (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 09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "I HAVE ADDED MORE"
   2. 09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Benz */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously adding unsourced info to the article. Also made the ridiculous claim of being in contact with the producer. If he really is, then he has leaked the producer's plans that he hasn't officially announced. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: The Fantastic Four: First Steps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I am including the comments by Shakman on Dr Doom, which should go together with Sneider's claim. This is not edit-warring"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293921051 by 2600:1017:B821:F1A1:F032:4FD6:913A:B867 (talk) Undid revision – contradicted by director’s statement; WP:STATUSQUO doesn’t apply when new evidence challenges inclusion"
   2. 13:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293922206 by Kala7992 (talk)"
   3. 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ As a comprise I re-added the Sneider source and mentioned Shakman's comments. However, the quote in InSneider states "the character being first introduced in a mid/post-credits sequence" does not mean RDJ will appear as Doom himself (instead of a sillhouette) so I removed mention of RDJ"
   4. 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 11:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293908793 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Claiming "vandalism" without actually proving it or rebutting my points with valid sources isn't "vandalism". My edits are policy-based and this will not stop unless WP:Consensus is reached in light of new evidence"
4. 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293908442 by Adamstom.97 (talk) ChatGPT said: Vandalism is deliberate bad-faith editing, per WP:VAND. My edits are sourced, policy-based, and part of an open content dispute, not vandalism. Please stop misusing the term."
5. 10:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293907816 by Adamstom.97 (talk) You have completely failed to refute my arguments based on the added context of Shakman's denial, which is a violation of which is a violation of WP:BURDEN, as the responsibility lies with you to justify inclusion of challenged material with reliable, verifiable sources — especially when directly contradicted by an on-the-record statement."
6. 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293905945 by Adamstom.97 (talk) I strongly reject the accusation of vandalism. My edits have been made in good faith and are based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS. I have not "ignored talk page messages", I’ve engaged in discussion and outlined my reasoning, including responses on the talk page. Please avoid using inflammatory language."
7. 10:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293905482 by Adamstom.97 (talk) WP:BURDEN material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, especially if it's speculative or poorly sourced must be supported by reliable sources or may be removed. WP:STATUSQUO also doesn’t apply if the existing version is being challenged in good faith and on policy grounds. My edits are not edit-warring but part of a legitimate dispute"
8. 10:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293903804 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Archived discussions are not permanent proof of consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change, especially when new sources, policy concerns, or context arise, which is the case here. Relying on old archives without re-evaluating new developments (such as a public denial from the director or debunking of a source) is not a valid substitute."
9. 10:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293903219 by Adamstom.97 (talk) no new consensus has been reached since Matt Shakman explicitly stated that Doctor Doom will not appear in the film. Per policy, the burden of proof lies with those seeking to include contested or speculative material, especially when it conflicts with a clear, on-the-record denial from the director."
10. 09:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293902380 by Adamstom.97 (talk) I have looked throughout the talk page and nowhere in this article do I see WP: Consensus over Jeff Sneider, only someone else who questioned Sneider's inclusion. Also as I have stated the director personally denied Dr Doom would be in the film https://ew.com/the-fantastic-four-first-ste, And there needs to be consensus on whether that debunks Sneider"
11. Consecutive edits made from 09:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    1. 09:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I added a better source for Mole Man, since Joseph Quinn confirmed Mole Man is in the movie"
    2. 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "I put an entry in the talk page, consensus should be established before including a post credit scene rumor as a casting announcement. Otherwise that is a stain on Wikipedia's credibility to verify correct information"
12. 08:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ What is the point of including scoopers like Jeff Sneider as a source for casting? Only base casting off of official confirmed sources, not unconfirmed rumors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Fantastic Four: First Steps."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
2. 14:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
3. 14:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
4. 14:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"

Comments:

Recent persistent edit warring content dispute against the current consensus. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I won't edit war anymore. Since I have received a warning I have ceased edit warring, and previously simply believed I was acting according to Wikipedia policy. However this will stop now. Also I edited due to what I perceived was inadequate with Wikipedia policy, and provided all of my reasoning in the Talk Page of that wiki article. However, I have reached a fair compromise now and will not edit anymore on that page.

I understand that my actions crossed the 3RR threshold. I genuinely believed I was following policy regarding WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, but I now realize I should have been more patient. I will not make any further changes without consensus and will work through the Talk Page going forward.

Also, it is worth clarifying that my edits were based on new, potentially conflicting information which emerged after the original consensus was established. Additionally, the editor I was in disagreement with referred to an archived consensus but did not cite or link to it directly when I asked, which made it difficult to verify whether that consensus still applied in the current context. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change in light of new evidence or sources. My intent was to reflect this updated context while still engaging on the Talk Page. I now understand that I should have waited for broader agreement before making multiple reversions and will not continue editing the article without consensus. Kala7992 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, Kala7992, this has been your approach the last time ([9]), edit warring and then saying you'll stop in the last minute before a block. You knew what you were doing, you knew it was disruptive, and I'm not buying your promise to not do it again in a few months. You can request an unblock explaining how the current situation is different from back then, why the warnings and own promises didn't prevent what happened today and why we can be sure that it really won't happen again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:122.106.2.164 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)

Page: Jack Haley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 122.106.2.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293945485 by FlightTime (talk) i did add source?"
2. 16:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293944081 by FlightTime (talk) i int hange picture, as for info a link is aed next to it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "a reference and sources"
   2. 16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "space/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jack Haley."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The two edits that lead to the still-current version are counted as one. The original edit reverted to does not count as a revert. FlightTime, you would be within rights to revert again, although I understand why you might not. The talk page has not been used in over three years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, while I'm fine with a report not being actioned due to a lack of a 3RR violation, I'm not sure if I can agree with telling someone they're within rights to edit war... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, usually most people report after their own third revert has been reverted. Reporting in this situation, where really there have only been two reverts, kind of wastes our time here IMO. Especially when they haven't used the talk page in a situation where the IP's edit summaries indicate they'd be willing to discuss. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, sure, that's fine with me. I'm not complaining about that! :D My concern is purely about "you would be within rights to revert again", which I don't think FlightTime is. But I have hopefully resolved that by protecting the page and restoring a stable revision, which is something we can of course do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to take action on the user's mind set and the sense of "No my edit stays" and before I go too far and violate 3rr, which is easy in the moment. I'll try to keep this discussion in the future. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Lowkey50 reported by User:Czello (Result: Pblocked from article, 1 month)

Page: John McGuirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lowkey50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Outdated and unreliable sources used. Refer: WP:BLP, WP:NOV and WP:V."
2. 17:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293941740 by Czello (talk) Correct, since there was no consensus reached, the information posted is intentionally misleading and does not fit in line with. Refer to WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially, WP:BLP."
3. 15:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293918843 by Czello (talk) Has been discussed in talk with extensive debate, conclusively, the arguments for inclusion of it are inadequate for it to remain. The sources as mentioned previously are completely erroneous, bias, and completely unreliable. Refer to: WP:RS"
4. 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Outdated, bias and untrue sources about the alleged. Both sources are also from obscure online publications who are not members of the Irish Press Council."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John McGuirk."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

• Partial blocked from John McGuirk for 1 month. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User: Czello reported by User:Lowkey50 (Result: No violation)

Page: John McGuirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Czello (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. [diff] 12:55, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs 17,497 bytes +777 Undid revision 1293918365 by Lowkey50 (talk) should not be removed without discussion first
2. [diff] 16:03, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs 17,497 bytes +777 Undid revision 1293936754 by Lowkey50 (talk) There was no consensus to remove this after extensive discussion. Please make your case there
3. [diff] 18:20, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs m 17,497 bytes +777 Reverted 1 edit by Lowkey50 (talk) to last revision by Czello
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1294074497 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_McGuirk Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Czello Comments:

User reverted my notice of me placing a warning that they are tagged in edit warring.

The user also is involved in other several breaches of Wikipedia rules and guidelines on the John McGuirk page, such as WP:NOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and especially WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Lowkey50 (talk • contribs)

Note, this is retaliatory report for the one I placed above. OP has violated 3RR (I have not, and have not reverted their last revert) and they have refused to join the discussion on the talk page despite multiple requests to do so. The content in question has been discussed at length, though OP has not contributed that discussion and in fact has overridden it. — Czello ^(music) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that the "diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is in fact not that, but instead a link to this noticeboard. I have not edited the article after they posted that on my talk page; this is deceptive/WP:GAMING on their part. The "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" does not link to anything other than the talk page, where OP has never once posted, so they have not attempted to resolve this on the talk page (despite there being a discussion they could contribute to). — Czello ^(music) 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The user above is consistently deleting his AN-3 Notice of Edit Warring on his own talk page, they have engaged with 3RR as showcased in the evidence above. The discussion is not a consensus but rather a debate, that was never resolved and never will due to the politicised nature of the article. The comment in the article is in direct breach of WP:BLP. Lowkey50 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement to keep a template on one's talk page. You'll notice that you also deleted it from your talk page, but I did not mention that as you're entitled to do so.

And no, I have not violated 3RR. Please read WP:3RR.

As for the edit itself, after much discussion there was no consensus to remove - you cannot override that because you don't like it. You still have yet to make your case on the talk page, instead trying to brute-force your preferred version. — Czello ^(music) 12:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor in this dispute with the page on my watchlist; this is a pretty clearcut 3RR violation by Lowkey50, with four reverts in the span of 24 hours. Czello (who actually spoke against this label on the talk page previously, and appears to just be maintaining the consensus version) is correct in linking to the past talk page discussion which did not find consensus to remove it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lowkey50:, as you're in violation of the WP:3RR, it would be advisable for you to self-revert your latest edition of the page, as WP:EW is pretty clearcut on reverts past the third in 24h resulting in a block. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Another uninvolved editor (in this latest dispute), with the page on my watchlist. Concur with ser!, it's a clear 3RR violation, with disingenuous edit summaries on the part of Lowkey, where they refer to "no consensus". There was indeed no consensus in the last debate on the talk page, but that was no consensus to remove the content, not no consensus to include it. And the fact that sources aren't members of the Irish Press Council is an entirely irrelevant red herring - Irish Central isn't based in Ireland. Nor is the Washington Post or Al Jazeera, but they're still WP:RS that can absolutely be used in Irish articles! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• No violation See above. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:216.228.182.154 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Page protected)

Page: Daniel Seddiqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 216.228.182.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294022057 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
2. 02:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293931340 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293742305 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
   2. 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293742353 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
   3. 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293740936 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Daniel Seddiqui."
2. 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Daniel Seddiqui."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotional */ new section"
2. 03:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotional */ IP inserting content"

Comments:

Needs another revert to remove this blatantly promotional content, but I don't wan to 3RR it myself. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Qwiogc reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Li Ching-Yuen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Qwiogc (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 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC) to 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   4. 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 17:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 15:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 15:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 15:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User talk:Qwiogc#June 2025

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After the above edits, Qwiogc has twice made an absurd edit, then self-reverted the next minute, at Genghis Khan[10][11] and Laozi[12][13]. NebY (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ponkey2008 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Resolved without action)

Page: Lamine Yamal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ponkey2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (involving addition of the word "young" to the claim in the lead and removal of sourced content)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 31 May, no edit summary (first addition of claim and removal of sourced content, partially reverted by Seasider53 then further removal of sourced content reverted by me)
2. 31 May, no edit summary (second addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by Seasider53 as unexplained content removal)
3. 31 May, "There is no need for this obvious bias, many pundits have said many things about many players, and that doesnt mean you should just state that they have said "he is the best player in the world". Stop adding that or else I'll keep correcting it" (third addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by Rap no Davinci)
4. 3 June, "I removed some unnecessary details there, as it was set to push one club's agenda! and does not agree with Wikipedia's policies" (fourth addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by me)
5. 6 June, "There is no need to state he won a domestic tremble on the foreword of his page, Even Ousmane Dembele that was very instrumental in PSG's treble doesnt even have it on his foreword. Please stop adding it here thanks❤️" (fifth addition of claim and removal of sourced content)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 June, including direction towards the article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Best (young) player in the world?", no response

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:
User appears intent on pushing a POV on this page per the edit summaries and has been reverted four times by three distinct users; attempts to guide the user onto the talk page have been entirely fruitless. Per the edit summary in diff 3 they seem entirely intent on continuing to push through their own version. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this is a situation where I think the edit warrior has a point that everyone's missing.

To wit: The claim he keeps removing is a rather extraordinary claim, all the more so for being inherently subjective, that really, per LEADCITE, should be cited in the intro even if it is already cited in the body (several sections down, where of course casual non-Wikipedian readers are going to stumble right across it). You yourself seem to have understood this issue in the talk page section you opened up a few hours before coming here, before Ponkey might have been reasonably expected to have responded by. And indeed you've been satisfied with this sort of resolution before. I'm deferring any action for now, and of course other admins can do as they will, but I think that maybe sourcing it in the intro would do a lot to end this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Daniel Case: but I don't think you've read this one correctly at all. The claim for the subject being regarded among the world's best did have citations, with four citations present in the lead; this only changed with an edit made after I filed this report. Every single one of Ponkey's edits have all been to versions of the page where the content has been cited. And just to be clear, I opened a talk page section three days ago per the diff you provide; not a few hours as you say above. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In this very diff that you provided, I see, yes, one cite at the end of the first graf. At the end of the next graf, I see "his performances have led to widespread claims by pundits and players that he is the best player in the world." That was the language Ponkey keeps removing.

And I would probably remove it too. Leaving aside its repetitiveness (just what editorial purpose is served by saying the very same thing we pretty much just said?), we use the very PEACOCK-y (in this context) "widespread" without bothering to cite even one such claim (And no, the single cite for the previous graf does not come anywhere near supporting any reasonable conclusion that these claims are "widespread")

Really, this was very sloppy editing on someone's part, and this is why we should not edit sloppily as it needlessly leads to this sort of situation. I would amend my previous suggestion to consolidating these "best footballer in the world right now" claims to one graf or the other, and following them up with about three of the citations in the body if we wish to continue claiming these are "widespread".

As for the talk page section I was discussing, it was my error. Sorry. But that does not invalidate in any way my larger critique here. (And maybe before warning Ponkey you might have tried posting something similar on their talk page?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that acknowledgment on the timestamp aspect. There were four citations combined into one at the end of the sentence - I believe I may have used "citation" rather than "reference" in my response, that's on me. The latter sentence which is essentially a repetition of content in the end of the "Club career" section has now been removed, which is fair enough. I'll implement your suggestion and re-add the citations per WP:LEADCITE and hopefully this solves the issue. Yourself or any other admin are free to close this as no action, as unless the reversion and addition of unsourced content re-ensues I would be satisfied with this. Thanks again, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'll close this here as a block would be tough to justify with WP:3RRNO #7 and WP:BLPRESTORE in mind and the page is already at least semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Resolved without action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:AHI-3000 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:SpongeBob SquarePants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AHI-3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Don't just revert without an explanation"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC) to 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "At least give me an excuse or justification instead of reverting without explanation"
   2. 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "What do you mean by "too small"? And the other previous version of this template had everything listed in a rather disorganized manner."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Navboxes"
2. 18:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing on navboxes */ re"
3. 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AHI has discovered collapsible subgroups and has decided they should be used in navboxes. Has been reverted several times, doesn't follow BRD or understands that being reverted means there is no consensus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already been cooperating with the issue concerning Template: Castlevania series and reponded to feedback accordingly. Soetermans just decided to revert my edits to a completely different template (Template:SpongeBob SquarePants) without even any explanation. He's also a participant in this edit conflict, and escalated it there, so he's not some neutral third-party observer. Instead of talking it out with me, he immediately resorts to doing this. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The explanation was clear as day: others disagree. That should be sufficient for you, I don't know, not edit war? Have you stopped? No, you did not. So here we are. Same goes for {{Castlevania}}, in which you continue to push for your preferred version. Notifying involved editors Oknazevad and SnowFire. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've only seen about this due to the recent edits on the SpongeBob SquarePants navbox template, but there appears to have been recent edit warring on Template:Castlevania series as well, with three different users reverting their edits there (two of the other editors notified above). Magitroopa (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Was already coming here to comment re: Template:Castlevania series for full disclosure. I have advised AHI that once he's reverted he needs to keep BRD in mind, and that he should not make any further changes to a live template while discussion is ongoing and instead should create a draft in his sandbox for others to look over. But the part that is the fundamentally disconcerting aspect is the edit summary quoted above "At least give me an excuse or justification instead of reverting without explanation". That's not how it works. As the one proposing the change, he, not those reverting undiscussed major changes, must be the one to give a justification, and said justification must gain consensus. He didn't even bother with an edit summary when he started. That's failing to do the bare minimum. oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

AHI-3000, based on Special:Diff/1294277184, I expect you not to edit for the next 24 hours so a block isn't needed to prevent further edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)