Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts

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

    Update this 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
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
    371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214
    1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498
    499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
    361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
    Other links

    User:Hhl95 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Partially blocked 1 month)

    [edit]

    Page: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hhl95 (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] & [5] (two reverts at once)
    4. [6]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] (softer warning), [8] (3RR)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

    Comments:

    User has been repeatedly reverting back to their preferred version despite reasonably clear consensus on the talk page against this. Danners430 tweaks made 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hippo43 reported by User:~2026-31589-49 (Result: Warned user(s) Reporter blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Alex Cole-Hamilton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14]
    4. [15]
    5. [16]
    6. [17]
    7. [18]
    8. [19]
    9. [20]
    10. [21]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

    Comments:

    User is adopting a completely inflexible attitude towards the subject matter's nationality, and is simply refusing to engage with, or otherwise countenance compromise with, multiple other editors who are advocating for alternative wording that better reflects the nuance of the situation. When he was warned for edit warring, his response was 'go away'[25]. When it was correctly noted that he had violated 3RR, his response was that this was a 'patronising approach' [26] and to continue reverting # [27]. It thus seems perfectly clear that he will not stop edit warring.~2026-31589-49 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hippo43, of your latest reverts, only the very last revert was actually exempt from the edit warring policy as it purely removed disputed content, which is compatible with WP:3RRNO #7 and WP:BLPRESTORE. Anything else, including your repeated re-addition of the word "English", does not qualify for this exemption, and if it continued, you'd be blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ToBeFree Thanks, and noted.
    The comment from IP guy above is dishonest. I have engaged in the discussions on the talk page, which he had not, until today, and others have not. Happy to keep discussing. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a few users seem to have interpreted "consensus" as something they achieved through edit warring. I have removed the disputed content for now. Thanks for discussing this on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? You have no justification for accusing me of dishonesty, especially since it has been confirmed that you were edit-warring and my complaint was thus valid. Please justify yourself, or strike out that allegation in accordance with WP:AGF. ~2026-31589-49 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you interacted with Hippo43 or Talk:Alex Cole-Hamilton before Special:Diff/1356362149, the message sent in the same minute as this report was created? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon editor, my edits have no bearing on your lack of honesty. You wrote above that I was "simply refusing to engage with, or otherwise countenance compromise with, multiple other editors". Yet I had made 3 comments on the article talk page on this issue, 2 within the last few days and one a couple of months back. Other editors have edited around this dispute but not engaged. Your comment was dishonest. Was it meant to mislead admins and others reading here? Will you withdraw your dishonest comment? // Hippo43 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hippo43, you're missing a part of the picture at the moment. You might be surprised. I'm currently waiting for ~2026-31589-49 to admit it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean. Multiple personalities? I would not be surprised. There has been a lot of it recently. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Into the silence, I'll disclose that the following edits probably came from the same person:
    And because the lack of a visible connection between these is disruptive bordering harassment, I'll block the temporary accounts involved in a way that allows the user to create a registered account (and use that from now on). Who knows how many other similar contributions there have been.
    ~2026-31589-49/~2026-27237-80, further editing without being logged into an account will be block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god, this user's harassment of Hippo43 has a history going back to 2024. Enough. You are now indefinitely blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JDtoBee reported by User:Aesurias (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 California billionaire tax initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: JDtoBee (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 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC) to 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      1. 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356463823 by Aesurias (talk)"
      2. 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356463180 by Aesurias (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 23:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC) to 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      1. 23:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356298244 by Aesurias (talk)"
      2. 06:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356302988 by JDtoBee (talk)"
      3. 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356298481 by Aesurias (talk)"
      4. 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356298244 by Aesurias (talk)"
      5. 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356298131 by Aesurias (talk)"
    3. 18:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC) "Revised as discussed in talk page, providing multiple high quality sources to substantiate that residency status is disputed and uncertain as a matter of law."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2026 California billionaire tax initiative."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC) "/* Disputed Factual Claims About Mobility Presented in a Biased Manner as Though Undisputed */ Reply"
    2. 03:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC) "/* Disputed Factual Claims About Mobility Presented in a Biased Manner as Though Undisputed */ Reply"
    3. 23:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ new section"
    4. 00:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    5. 00:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    6. 00:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    7. 00:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    8. 00:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    9. 00:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    10. 22:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"
    11. 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "/* JDtoBee */ Reply"

    Comments:

    This editor has been continually reverting to a version of the article that multiple other editors have opposed, without explanation. Attempt to resolve dispute on talk page has been met with AI wall of text from them. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arsemagic reported by User:Koncorde (Result: No action needed)

    [edit]

    Page: Gabriel Martinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "I told you the rules of the fa cup only players in the matchday squad receive medals, you were asked to provide a requested link to say that martinelli had received an fa cup winners medal ? these websites may not know the fa cup finals rules and regs can you show a link where he got special dis"
    2. 20:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "absolutely none of them are respected sources henry did not get a medal in 2005 and said it but that site lists him with one"
    3. 19:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "he was out injured the club did not request a medal, can you prove that they did?"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Gabriel Martinelli."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been multiple edit summaries explaining, in addition to adding uncontroversial sources.

    Comments:

    User is WP:UNCIVIL and (verging on WP:NOTHERE) and has a Battleground mindset. Has had multiple confrontations already. Koncorde (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pointed out quiet clearly that the player involved did not receive an FA Cup winners medal because he was injured, FA Cup rules state only players in the final matchday squad receive a medal. Of course the person who reported me stated the club can request medals for players not in final matchday squads. I asked them to provide a direct link that Martinelli received special dispensation from the FA to receive a medal but none was provided. Arsemagic (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is incorrect. As informed, and can be found on FA Cup rules.[28] as well as from the Rules of the FA Challenge Cup Competition, part 281.
    SECTION G: MISCELLANEOUS
    Trophy and Medals
    277. The Trophy is the property of The Association.
    278. The Association shall loan the Trophy to the Club that wins the Competition on such terms and conditions as The Association shall determine. That Club will be responsible for returning the Trophy to The Association in good order and condition on or before the first day in March in the following year.
    279. The Association reserves the right to request the return of the Trophy at any time by giving seven days’ notice to the Club to which it has been loaned.
    280. Where the Trophy is lost, destroyed or damaged in any way while under the care or custody of a Club, in addition to any other penalty which the Professional Game Board may impose, that Club shall refund to The Association the amount of its current insured value or the costs of thorough repair.
    281. The Association shall present 40 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs competing in the Final. Koncorde (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Koncorde, thanks for coming here and stopping to violate WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. When a consensus for including the material has been found on the article's talk page, it can be included again. This noticeboard is unsuitable for holding the content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsensical. The BLP contains a statement of fact, the fact has been sourced. The statement is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." but it was restored with multiple additional sources (which have been subsequently removed, with further patently false assertions - provided here as evidence to the fact). Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Koncorde, which significant change is between Special:Diff/1356607518 and Special:Diff/1356614385? Why is the last edit to the article's talk page older than 3 years? Arsemagic has been here for a month, you've been here for almost 20 years. It's time for you to lead by example:

    Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. [...] Avoid reverting during discussion.
    — Wikipedia:Edit warring § How to avoid an edit war

    There is no way this report gets actioned with any sanction more severe for the reported user than for you, so please just accept the "no action" close and slightly adjust the course. Starting a discussion here instead of continuing to revert was a good decision, taking the discussion to the article's talk page and inviting the reported user to it using {{please see}} on their talk page would be a productive next step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JordanWrites123 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Patriot Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: JordanWrites123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC) "1st par. + infobox: white supremacist -> white nationalist. Several recent reliable secondary sources describe the organization as nationalist rather than supremacist. Because the characterization is disputed and not consistently supported across current sources, ‘nationalist’ is a more neutral and verifiable descriptor. [Program on extremism (GWU): “Patriot Front is a white nationalist organization...”, SPLC: “Patriot Front is a white nationalist hate group...” ISD Explainers: “can be classifie"
    2. 00:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356470470 by Acroterion (talk) - ADL is not a reliable source as they lean left and are pro Israel. Other than possible former ties, not enough evidence regarding Patriot Front advocating for white supremacy."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC) to 23:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      1. 23:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356450667 by Czello (talk) - Sources taken from sites like the ADL can be biased. Patriot Front officially frames itself as protecting American heritage rooted in ancestral identity rather than advocating for a 'superior' race."
      2. 23:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Patriot front infobox: White Nationalism -> White nationalism. 'See also': List of neo-Nazi organizations -> List of neo-fascist organizations"
    4. 20:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "1st par.: white supremacist -> white nationalist. Patriot Front infobox: white supremacist -> white nationalist. Evidence portrays the group as a white nationalist rather than white supremacist. Can be compared to Identitarian movement in Europe."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Patriot Front."
    2. 23:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "CT notice"
    3. 01:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "/* May 2026 */ note"
    4. 01:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "/* May 2026 */ r"
    5. 02:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "/* May 2026 */ r"
    6. 02:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "/* May 2026 */ add"
    7. 02:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC) "/* May 2026 */ add"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC) on User talk:JordanWrites123 "/* May 2026 */ add"

    Comments:

    Sustained edit-warring. Despite requests to discuss on the article talkpage, the editor has not done so. References are not unanimous concerning "nationalist" versus "supremacist," but JordanWrites123 has made a point of dismissing those that don't agree with their preferred characterization without discussion. Early edit summaries indicate reliance on self-characterization by the organization, rather than independent sources, and later referencing is only via edit summary. Reverts start from apparent TA edit. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Add onto this that the user is edit warring across multiple pages; in most cases it appears to be whitewashing far-right parties by sofetning the language away from what the sources actually say. — Czello (music) 07:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ArchiveOtter reported by User:Aesurias (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 Santa Clara County District Attorney election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1357123900 by Aesurias (talk) Responded in the Talk. These people are listed as "key supporters" in a reputable, verified source."
    2. 21:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1357123073 by Aesurias (talk) The same KQED article is being used as a reference for Rosen's endorsements but somehow for Chung it doesn't follow the guidelines? Please provide your explanation in the Talk."
    3. 21:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1357119919 by Aesurias (talk) Endorsements from credible sources are being selectively removed for Chung, suggesting political bias by editors. Adding them back in to keep the page neutral."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2026 Santa Clara County District Attorney election."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 21:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "/* Biased cherry-picking and removal of sourced endorsements for Daniel Chung */ Reply"
    2. 22:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "/* Biased cherry-picking and removal of sourced endorsements for Daniel Chung */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Combining 3 accounts (2 registered, 1 unregistered) into one report here. Combined 10+ reverts and consistent edit warring on this article because all of them (1 person?...) refuse to read the WP:ENDORSE guideline. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ardiansrfh reported by User:Wira rhea (Result: Nominator blocked, page protected)

    [edit]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]
    5. [34]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

    Comments:

    User:~2026-32191-32 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    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.

    Page: Standard Generalized Markup Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ~2026-32191-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "I'm merely citing the specification. Do not vandalize valid objectively correct information that absolutely belongs in this article."
    2. 21:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "If the section is the problem, I'll just make a new section below "history". A "Criticisms" section has already been suggested years ago by someone else in the talk page."
    3. 21:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "since the discussion seems to be over, I will not call SGML obsolete but I will note that xml and html can't be parsed fully and reliably with a pure sgml parser. They are not compatible enough."
    4. 17:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356902703 by MrOllie (talk) sgml does not suppot xml namespaces. it's not a subset anymore."
    5. 14:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1356890251 by Tedickey (talk) Tedickey did not reply on his talk page."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 21:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC) "/* HTML and XML are not SGML-parseable */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Edit warring to keep WP:OR in the article, with a side of personal attacks: [38], [39] MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    At least someone will hopefully read it now. I hate being helpless against power abuse but no one except my bullies care about me. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are not power abuse; ignoring them usually results in opposition. The content can be restored if a consensus for doing so is found on the article's talk page, and your current approach is unhelpful in reaching that goal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    wpburden: I think I provided sufficient verifiable citation from the HTML specificition.
    Wponus: I wanted to find a consensus on the talk page but it was impossible because they simply insisted on what contradicts the specification and didn't feel obligated to provide new arguments for their point of view and didn't provide any feedback or contribution on what they think would help a criticism section. They didn't seem to want the constructive discussion I was hoping for ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The verifiability itself has been challenged, so that alone already requires a discussion before reinstatement. But even if the content is fully verifiable and not synthesis or otherwise problematic, you'd still be required to obtain a consensus for adding the verifiable material, perhaps through a third opinion or an RfC, perhaps asking on a WikiProject's talk page for more opinions. Other editors are not required to argue in a circle presenting the same arguments against yours again and again. If there had been purely zero discussion on the article's talk page after attempts by you to start a discussion, the situation would be different, but MrOllie invested more time than they were required to into Talk:Standard Generalized Markup Language § HTML and XML are not SGML-parseable and now the load of finding someone to agree with your point is on your shoulders, not theirs, and it is on your shoulders alone and to 100%. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also removed a statement on the page which you have restored. This: "It does, however, define an alternative XHTML serialization, which conforms to XML and therefore to SGML as well." Edit summary was: "Contradicts HTML5 spec: "Also, since neither of the two authoring formats defined in this specification are applications of SGML" https://html.spec.whatwg.org/" It means xhtml5 is not sgml. I think I don't need consensus to remove verifiably wrong information. Am I wrong about this? ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie, objections to removing this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I object. It needs consensus on the talk page just like the rest of these proposals - there are citations (already cited in the article) that pretty clearly support that. There are other sources that may say something different (though the wording the TA quotes here is ambiguous), but that should be explained without sides being taken. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I insist that the whatwg html5 living specification is the only source of truth, not some hearsay or the w3 commitee which got replaced by whatwg because of it's historical inability to reconcile its fantasy specifications with the real world and actual implementation and needs of developers. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But to answer your question, you're right that removing incorrect (or more precisely, unverifiable) information is generally always fine. The restoration is an unintentional side effect of the revert to a stable revision ... unless there are objections to the removal of that part, in which case the stable revision prevails as I won't judge who of you is right or wrong about the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ollie said "HTML 1, 2, and 3 were only sort of SGML, and 5 is in a similar position." on the talk page. But html5 is not "sort of sgml", it just isn't. Browsers never parsed html as sgml. Not 1 2 3 or 4. I think there is a widespead misconception that I wish to clear up. I also quoted the section where it says that from the spec in the article. He's the prime example of why the criticism section I wrote is needed. To me it looked more like he disagreed about how html and xml relate and are compatible with sgml rather than the inclusion of some text saying that into the article. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't cherry pick parts of my comments out of context. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I quoted you out of context in a manner that is disrespectful or changes your statement. If you want to add something to it please do so. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sooo the stable revision prevails. As this noticeboard is unsuitable for finding a consensus about the content, I'll mark this as closed at this point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    ~2026-32587-25

    [edit]

    This user edit warred despite both a lower level warning by me and a harsher warning by @HarvardJock. This is my first report so I'm not sure what to do. Please ping for anything. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 01:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Click on the "Click here to create a new report" button above. That gives you the proper template formatting to publish a report. You can delete your current post afterwards. Thanks for reporting! HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dafootballguy and HarvardJock, please both take a moment to join the discussion on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree Thanks for the heads up! I didn't see his ping because of his lower case misspelling of my username. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1357163283"