Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Worlds Finest

Page: {{pagelinks|Black hole}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Qegfkkkuy}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1293073026|14:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "The utterly wrong statements about black holes' high density, contained in the article, are completely unsourced."
2. {{diff2|1293071264|14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with idiots"
3. {{diff2|1293070546|14:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Discuss with whom? The inane first line of the article, defining black holes as high-density objects, has been here since the beginning of Wikipedia, and nobody noticed"
4. {{diff2|1293064792|13:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Provide a reason."
5. {{diff2|1293056067|11:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. {{diff2|1293071489|14:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Actively refusing to discuss and calling other editors "idiots" McSly (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from Black hole for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :How can you block someone from something with infinite gravitational force? {{smiley}} Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{NAO}} {{re|Daniel Case}} With a pulsar gun. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|2025 Boulder fire attack}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Bloxzge 025}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293658752]
2. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293644897]
3. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293641096]
4. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293635878]
5. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293641162] previous version is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Boulder_fire_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1293636644]

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

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloxzge_025&diff=prev&oldid=1255269974] 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: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloxzge_025&diff=prev&oldid=1293663932]

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)

Page: {{pagelinks|Template:Conservatism US}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Azaadtheking}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1293686705|04:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1293531412 by Trakking (talk)"
2. {{diff|oldid=1293517603|diff=1293521162|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC) to 05:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}}
3. {{diff2|1293517857|04:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} "my evidence was his support of the new deal and the taxes and military industrial complex, you cannot give stuff that has not evidence. Additionally you cannot make a rule mandating past only without others agreeing with you"
4. {{diff2|1293521162|05:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} ""
5. {{diff2|1293517270|04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} "no you gave no evidence he is one other than " he still is one of the major ones". and we need to put major and current"
6. {{diff2|1293512568|04:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} "no eisenhower did not go to any major war, Prefered diplomacy over war, opposed a military industrial complex and supported new deal and kept taxation of 91%, Lincoln was not here either as he had started the abolitionism support within Moderate Republicans and War Democrats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. {{diff2|1293512857|04:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Minor figures */ new section"
2. {{diff2|1293517742|04:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Minor figures */ Reply"

Comments:

Despite multiple people reverting him, he refuses to discuss on the talk page, despite my attempts. Subject warned of edit warring by Trakking in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Conservatism_US&diff=prev&oldid=1293531412 PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Page 1: {{pagelinks|Amyn Aga Khan}} 6RR+

Page 2: {{pagelinks|Aly Muhammad Aga Khan}} 5RR+

Page 3: {{pagelinks|Yasmin Aga Khan}} 3RR+

User 1 being reported: {{userlinks|119.18.0.71}}

User 2 being reported: {{userlinks|TAWikiEdit }}

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

EW on 3+ articles.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At least three articles with 3RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff||1293652544|1293617082|119.18.0.71}}

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff||1293652552|1291957298|TAWikiEdit}}

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

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

{{diff||1293696701|1293652544|119.18.0.71}}

{{diff||1293696926|1293652552|TAWikiEdit}}

Comments:

Seem to have been going on for a few days or more. Adakiko (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for two weeks for block evasion. I'll let someone else evaluate whether TAWikiEdit should be sanctioned for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Julian Hill (politician)}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|120.151.86.161}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff|oldid=1293858138|diff=1293859156|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}
2. {{diff2|1293858188|02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Views */"
3. {{diff2|1293859156|02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} ""
4. {{diff2|1293858039|02:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Views */"
5. {{diff2|1293857814|02:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Views */"
6. {{diff2|1293857581|02:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Views */"
7. {{diff2|1293857176|02:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Views */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. {{diff2|1293857236|02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 1) (AV)"
2. {{diff2|1293857623|02:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 2) (AV)"
3. {{diff2|1293857894|02:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 3) (AV)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have no idea who Julian Hill is but this person apparently does not like him and won't stop reverting our removals of blatent WP:NPOV stuff. There's an additional 4th warning on their talk page given by another person who also monitors recent changes that they also reverted after. I have not reverted their latest edit (because 3RR). —tony^{st (talk)} 02:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{AN3|w}} IP was not specifically warned about edit warring and 3RR EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Benz (film)}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Shuaib Shukri Alias}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff|oldid=1293899444|diff=1293900613|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}
2. {{diff2|1293900193|09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "I HAVE ADDED MORE"
3. {{diff2|1293900613|09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. {{diff2|1293903660|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)

Page: {{pagelinks|Cameroon_GCE_Board}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|41.202.207.144}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1291006959|10:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}} "This user altered and added spammy contents, ultimately trying to scam GCE candidates by falsifying information not publicly verified"
2. {{diff2|1293918625|12:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with scammers"

Comments:

Actively trying to sabotage the authenticity of the Cameroon GCE Board by creating fake profiles and claiming to be active members Mbulite (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• The IP hasn't edited since May 18.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|The Fantastic Four: First Steps}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Kala7992}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1293929325|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. {{diff|oldid=1293921051|diff=1293924247|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}
3. {{diff2|1293922206|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"
4. {{diff2|1293922979|13:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1293922206 by Kala7992 (talk)"
5. {{diff2|1293923572|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"
6. {{diff2|1293924247|13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Cast */"
7. {{diff2|1293908963|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"
8. {{diff2|1293908553|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."
9. {{diff2|1293908092|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."
10. {{diff2|1293906141|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."
11. {{diff2|1293905793|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"
12. {{diff2|1293904291|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."
13. {{diff2|1293903727|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."
14. {{diff2|1293902784|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"
15. {{diff|oldid=1293898621|diff=1293899173|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}
16. {{diff2|1293899041|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"
17. {{diff2|1293899173|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"
18. {{diff2|1293897733|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. {{diff2|1293928620|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. {{diff2|1293927156|14:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
2. {{diff2|1293927723|14:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
3. {{diff2|1293928169|14:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
4. {{diff2|1293928717|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)