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

PahlaviFan reported by PJK 1993 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
I'm carrying over an earlier discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Poland. User PahlaviFan has engaged in disruptive editing on the Poland page by refusing to accept a consensus reached on the Talk:Poland page, and continues to remove reliable reference sources, which do not fit their point of view, also all the while, user PahlaviFan has not presented a reference source to validate their claims. So, no reliable reference source has been presented, yet the user continues to revert the text back to a dubious claim. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add that PahlaviFan's behaviour could be seen as vandalism. It was brought to their attention that the "source" which they initially presented simply does not say what they are claiming it says- not even close. The continued insertion of a dubious and unsourced claim can be viewed as a deliberate act to propagate a myth or a hoax on Wikipedia. While at the same time removing reliable reference sources which contradict their views. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there, and you're in fact deleting referenced, consensus-established parts. The Britannica highlights statehood (territorial unit) preceding the baptism.PahlaviFan (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let me explain again for you. 4 editors after a long discussion which took place over several days agreed to the date of 966, then you jumped in and started reverting stuff and adding dubious and unsourced material. --PJK 1993 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello PJK 1993 and welcome to Wikipedia. Your very first edit to Wikipedia has been starting an RfC about this. You then started an edit war and took people to ANI and this noticeboard here.

Please just stop and find something else to do. You've made your point, now let the discussions run. People are discussing on the article's talk page, great. You don't need to dominate the discussion, you don't need to edit the article during the dispute and you don't need to throw reports all around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, thank you for your action. Indeed, it is quite important to have a meaningful and academically honest discussion, however the statements inserted into Wikipedia need verifiability and need to be accurate. When an editor is changing or added something this needs a source and the source needs to say exactly that. There is no point in having a discussion about a made up claim and a source, which says nothing of the sort. --PJK 1993 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993, as long as you are adding content, such as "Baptism of Poland" or "14 April 966", you are required to find a consensus for its inclusion instead of doing so repeatedly (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, WP:EW). If you are right, someone else will do it sooner or later; there is no need for this to be done by you. As it turns out, PahlaviFan is a sockpuppet, which is good because else Special:Diff/1304214697 would have led to an edit warring block. When you have been edit warring about this recently, or when you started the RfC about it, you're not in a position to determine if a consensus has already been reached.

If you are concerned about the verifiability of a statement and want to insist on keeping it out of the article until properly verifiable and a consensus is found, you can remove the disputed claim, such as the infobox parameter. You then have WP:BURDEN in your favor. You don't if you add disputed material yourselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

31.96.110.34 and related IPs reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Page protected)

Page: Pakistan–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

31.96.110.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

31.112.160.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

31.112.160.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1300655355, with some variation and attempts to reintroduce effectively the same content about airlines, while leaving be the Religion content whose removal is apparently not in dispute but which was caught in the crossfire of some of the earlier reverts.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. August 5 by 31.96
2. July 28 by 31...108
3. July 27 by 31...108
4. July 25 by 31...108
5. July 24 by 31...108
6. July 21 by 31...108
7. July 15 by 31...108
8. July 14 by 31...229

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1301757529

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermaLink/1302657750

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1304347460

Comments:

While the exact text has varied a bit, this IP range has persistently attempted to add WP:UNDUE content about "Western" airlines, particularly British Airways, and particularly emphasizing "100 years of continued service" (in the most recent revert, this becomes "95 years of flights in 2019"). IP has not offered any policy-based arguments for their edits on the talk page, and is contested by myself and another editor who was called in via 3O. Given the difference in range but similarity in behavior in the most recent IP's edits, my guess is that is likely a different device operated by the same person. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging ToBeFree who had asked to be notified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Dreamweaver 2222 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked)

Page: Santhosh Balaraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dreamweaver 2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:
User has continued past multiple vandalism and sourcing warnings and has not responded on talk page. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Revert warring to add an unsourced date of birth to Santhosh Balaraj. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:JoyfullySmile reported by User:Welcometothenewmillenium (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Big Brother 26 (American season) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoyfullySmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1252885888: [16], [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_26_(American_season): [diff]

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

Comments:

• Both OP and subject past WP:3RR and blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Greenturtle1 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Bảo Đại (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Greenturtle1 (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 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 04:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Incorporated citations from reputable academic journals and institutions, substantiated by peer-reviewed research. Restored previously removed content that aligns with scholarly standards and was erroneously flagged as disruptive."
   2. 04:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Incorporated citations from reputable academic journals and institutions, substantiated by peer-reviewed research. Restored previously removed content that aligns with scholarly standards and was erroneously flagged as disruptive."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 02:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
   2. 02:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) to 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions"
   2. 20:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions"
   3. 20:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added form reputable sources and institutions;"
4. 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added"
5. 09:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "journal article context citation added"
6. 06:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC) "historical and journal article citations added"
7. 06:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC) "citations added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bảo Đại."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article was semi-protected on 2 August 2025 for 1 year by ToBeFree due to edit-warring between IP socks of blocked LTA editors.

A newly autoconfirmed account, Greenturtle1, is repeatedly reintroducing changes by one of the sets of IPs. Past 3RR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They're also "thanking" themselves from IPs that geolocate to the same area as each other. Not a good look. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:OCDD August 3 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was already this discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Unfortunately, considering that ANI thread, I think this user has had way too many warnings and it is time for them to be blocked indefinitely. Looking at the ANI thread, they have had way too many chances dating back 2 or 3 years. Many of their recent contributions such as this: [25], [26], they persistently edit warred and unexplained their changes, when I explained my changes and when they reverted they did not explain theirs. In many times they re removed content without explaining why it is being removed. It feels like they claim they own the encyclopaedia. No single user owns the encyclopaedia. After 2 edit warring blocks for this user, I think there should be no more chances. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If a block is decided by the admins, so be it. But YOUR behavior should 100% be put to a halt. I have had enough of your creepy stalking. Acting like a goody two shoes does not change the fact that you are actively targeting me. And I am sick and tired of your stalking and obsession. You need to be blocked because you obsess over users who have friction with you. You target them, you mass revert and make mistakes. You do not do research and claim to follow rules when you don't. OCDD (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

OCDD It is not you as a User I am targeting. It is these unexplained changes I am targeting. Here are some of your other accusation of other users: [27], [28]. Could you also specify your changes? (Like your removal of content when you persistently do not leave an edit summary?). Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:179.119.4.72 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked)

Page: Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 179.119.4.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Is this really a dummy edit?"
2. 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Wikipedia guidelines state that any editor can contribute to or modify any article (WP:OWN)."
3. 04:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "I’m an experienced contributor currently unable to log in to the English Wikipedia. This article has been flagged as misinformation by mainstream Brazilian media (see: https://claudiodantas.com.br/livro-de-alexandre-de-moraes-erros-crassos). If you believe there is something incorrect or inappropriate, please clarify specifically what needs to be fixed."
4. 00:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverting previous user’s revert. The prior edit was not an automated copy-paste but aimed to correct errors (typos, adding Second Circuit reversal date November 2, 1917, and citation 246 F. 24) and improve structure (Background, Decision, Appeal, Legacy sections) using reliable sources (FSC, FIRE). These changes are now integrated into the existing article to enhance accuracy and readability, avoiding duplication, with proper attribution."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 2025-08-06T08:04:04Z

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be pasting LLM output directly into the middle of the article, duplicating sections. Edit summary You will have to censor me and block the page is less than constructive here. tony 12:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Honestly, this editor's behavior appears to be nonsense, I hardly think the Brazilian press has flagged the article as misinformation, but for now I'm pageblocking and monitoring. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: p-blocked for two weeks.)

Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:
Now resorting to "spitting out his dummy" WP:POINTY edits on other British Empire related articles such as British Indian Ocean Territory and British Overseas Territories. Suggest a topic ban on any related article. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

And they continue [[36]], yep T ban. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, 10mmsocket, you deleted my input on your talk page. Please don't delete messages on talk pages. TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• TheIconic'Qwertyuiop', User:10mmsocket was perfectly justified in doing so, and bringing that up is quite irrelevant for this report. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Drmies thank you. @TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' if you read the comment you'll see I said your post was more suitable for the talk page of the article where you are edit warring. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Slatersteven, please tell me that we are not warring here over the word "final", because that is an easy fix. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  As I say on the talk page, I also question whether this even deserves a mention at this time (if at all). Nor am I alone in having expressed that doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  The war was over the word "final". He claimed that I was adding things without explicitly mentioning it, when in reality, he knew what I was writing because he was the one deleting everything, meaning that logically, he would know that I was re-adding everything he deleted and would know that I was adding citations to the paragraph. Then he cleared everything saying I was going overly into detail. I was seeking consensus for shortening the article using two sentences. Although I couldn't reach consensus, I re-added it and thought that a short section would be alright. Steven said "How do we know this will be the last one (for a start), this felt insulting but I thought, 'Oh, okay, he must have something else in mind', seeing as he already did that on the BE talk page, and finally 10mmsocket jumped in and said "Final handover is very unlikely to be true", despite him not even reading the whole sentence, which was "east of the mainland in Great Britain", and denied this when I told him about it, then started accusing me of WP:POINTY, which did take place because, at this point in time, I thought it would be suitable to change 14 to 13 because of what's going on in the Chagos right now. But take my opinion with a pinch of salt. TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Qwerty, there is no doubt you were edit warring on British Empire and I am going to block you from editing that article. I see there is some discussion on the talk page over whether a trimmed version of your initial huge edit is warranted; you may contribute there, but please do so in a courteous and collegial manner. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Ozan33Ankara reported by User:GoldenDragonHorn (Result: full protection for three days)

Page: Sultanate of Mogadishu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ozan33Ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments: Editor in question will not compromise or collaborate, even when his POV and sources have been retained in the article, he has opted to remove modern sources without actually discussing them, has repeatedly used the RFC and the DRN platforms as devices to threaten the other parties with (even when a request or a new ticket has been welcomed by the latter) which is contrary to what they were originally intended for, which is resolution, but unfortunately based on his extensive pattern of disruptive behaviour, such as ignoring the points of other editors, his clear pushing of a pro-Arab narrative in the biographies and histories of non-Arab figures and polities, while locking heads with multiple different editors from diverse backgrounds in the form of edit wars makes the prospect of a resolution very slim. GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protected in full for three days. Ankara hasn’t yet violated 3RR, but the talk page discussion proves why the Horn of Africa is a contentious topić (one I’m physically close to at the moment, ironically) and I will be tagging the talk page after I’m done) I ufrge you both to get other people involved so as to establish consensus in the enforced break you now have. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, this is a case where one user has reverted three different editors and made a 4th revert with what might be perceived as a minor change to an outside observer (10th century to 13th century) but has major ramifications on the article's historic timeline, also other people are already involved. Unfortunately you have placed the protection tag on a version that has been rejected by several editors, and in the process have rewarded his disruptive behaviour. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the status quo ante from before the most recent dispute began on the 5th. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:OCDD reported by User:Servite et contribuere (Result: Blocked two weeks)

Page: Lovely Lolla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: OCDD (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 11:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC) to 11:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
   1. 11:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304495199 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
   2. 11:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 10:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304484465 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
3. 08:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304480604 by Servite et contribuere (talk)"
4. 08:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 09:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lovely Lolla."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have given them warnings, I gave reasons for revert, they did not. I also warned them to give a valid reason for removal in the edit summary and they persistently ignored me. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Further comments I feel like by their history, they would have tried to get very defensive about all their edits. They don't seem to want to collaborate. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the reporting editor also made 4 reverts on that article within a 24 hour period. Should probably be blocked as well, as they are obviously aware of the rule. More general issues of interaction between the two (with one uncommunicative and one stalker-like) can be hashed out at ANI. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; Servite et contribuere doesn't have OCDD's block log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:92.40.217.172 reported by User:Drt1245 (Result: )

Page: Floating-gate MOSFET (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.40.217.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also other IPs: 92.40.216.119, 86.187.168.156, 92.40.216.35

Comments:
In another undo, an editor mentioned that the IP user is a sock of Maestro2016, who was banned for being a sock of Jagged_85, as seen here. I have no other involvement or knowledge of this matter.

User:Thein Htike San 1999 reported by User:KhantWiki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Zaw Min Tun (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thein Htike San 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

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

Comments:
{{The article of Zaw Min Tun needs stable and immediate page protection due to vandalism and persistent edit-warring from multiple users, including the reported user. The user User:Thein Htike San 1999 has engaged in at least five reverts between 20 July and 6 August 2025, repeatedly restoring disruptive edits without engaging in talk page discussion. The user began the edit-warring behavior on 20 July 2025 and has not stopped despite ongoing reversions and attempts at stabilization. Immediate administrative action is requested.}}

Blocked – Indef by User:Ymblanter for WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wonder29 reported by User:Nikkimaria (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Richard Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wonder29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 23:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Revert"
3. 23:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304584034 by Aza24 (talk)"
4. 23:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1304582934 by Aza24 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC) to 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Richard Wagner

Comments:

In addition to the reverts listed above, the initial edit was a restoration of a proposed change that received clear consensus against implementation when it was discussed last year. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No consensus was established. That is a lie. It was a work in development. I made changes others suggested and said I would leave several months for discussion then proceed with changes. Which I did. If you want to dispute that and establish a formal consensus against the new infobox, then hold a RFC with formal vote.

Wonder29 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You wanted to make an addition; your addition was opposed and no consensus was established in favour of it; you cannot just proceed anyways and then demand others get consensus to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

My addition was also not opposed by some, and no consensus in favour to not proceed with it. This is Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia that anybody can edit. While there was much discussion you are trying to make allegations of a consensus which is simply false.

Wonder29 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Dude! One person supported it and four people opposed it! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The box was under development so what was supported and opposed is meaningless as it was an evolving process. It was a call for input, not a vote to establish consensus. If you would like to make formal vote for consensus now that it is finalized, by all means. But don't say there was a consensus when there was not.

Wonder29 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)