Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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:Joefromrandb reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Page protected)

Page: Philadelphia crime family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "if your "not sure what's wrong with it" (apart from the grade school-level prose), you really have no business editing articles that concern living people; read WP:BLP, then read it again - I don't give a flying fuck how "other articles" about cosa nostra in America handle things; for the moment, I'm dealing with this one"
2. 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
3. 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
4. 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "Edit warring at Philadelphia crime family"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:35, 8 January 2021‎ (UTC) on Talk:Philadelphia crime family "Current membership section"

Comments: Besides the personal attacks and unproductive attitude of Joefromrandb, he has gone over WP:3RR after a large removal of reliably sourced information in a WP:BOLD edit. I reverted this edit and Joefromrandb was urged to then follow the WP:BRD cycle, but was seemingly unwilling to take the matter to the talk page, so I eventually took it to the talk page myself. Per BRD, however, the original version should remain until after discussion. Joefromrandb was also unresponsive to the 3RR warning on his talk page, thinking I was trolling him. It does seem this user has a long history with civility and edit warring issues. Joefromrandb claimed WP:3RRNO due to supposed WP:BLP issues, however, the information is sourced by U.S. Department of Justice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS, etc. that specifically state the persons' roles in the crime family. Therefore, WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." We go by reliable sources, not what you think is "garbage". This is not a crutch Joefromrandb should stand on to continue edit warring, or one that should replace the need for discussion as outlined in BRD. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I invite any admin to have a look at my edits, summaries, and talk page comments, as they speak for themselves. WP:BLP is not "a crutch" (yeah, he really did say that), but a black-letter non-negotiable mandate which must be followed by all editors, all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This user's latest edit was to "make the information LESS DEFAMATORY (my emphasis)"; "less defamatory"? Wtf? I'm sorry I have to repeat it a third time: "less defamatory". I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. He is openly advocating libel in Wikipedia articles. Are you fucking kidding me? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:3RRNO, a crutch. Dude, come on, really. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And that suggestion was made by User:EdJohnston at my talk page, and you go and revert it, again. Do you seriously have no respect for the process of BRD? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please work this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Followup: EdJohnston, it seems to have been overlooked that Jrfrb is under a 1R/page/day restriction [1]. In his spare time he's been repeatedly reinserting mixed-up stuff, accompanied by ponderously oblivious edit summaries, on one of our most-read articles at a most inopportune time [2][3][4][5]. Keeping a death grip on the wrong end of the stick is a longstanding habit with this editor [6] and I would suggest that a stern word is in order. EEng 00:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  You know, I was all ready to respond to our self-appointed colourful jester EENG with a response equally, if not more colourful, but as strife begets strife, I'll simply say that the restriction of which EENG speaks is subject to the usual exemptions, and he knows this. His attempt at stirring the pot is noted; moving on. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not involved in this dispute but I just want to say that Joefromrandb has been less than civil during this dispute. The text here and edit summaries both here and at the contested article are filled with personal attacks and instances of not assuming good faith, which can be seen above. I don't have any opinion on the edit warring, this is something for others to decide, but Joefromrandb shouldn't be continuing to make these personal attacks, there's no place for that on Wikipedia. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  No response from you is required. Just start paying attention [7]. EEng 15:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing "response" with "jacket" or "reservation"; bullshit this egregious indicates a response is in order, if not outright requiring it. I guess your "1RR" straw man didn't get you enough attention? I'll play along. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  EEng 19:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:Debresser (Result: No violation)

Page: The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne2 (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. It started with this edit by an IP, not claiming this was MaxBrowne2 although it is possible, with the misleading edit summary "Fixed grammar"
2. [8] MaxBrowne2's first certified revert, with an annoying edit summary "bad edit summary is not a reason for revert, and the word "trauma" was a good contribution", annoying since this was not just a "bad" edit summary, but actually actively misleading, which is unacceptable, although I agree that had the edit been good, I would have probably kept it
3. [9] MaxBrowne2's second certified revert. The edit summary "I didn't ask you" as outright WP:BATTLEGROUND. In addition, MaxBrowne2 should have understood by now that I oppose to the bold change introduced by the IP and him, and should not have edit warred.
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: MaxBrowne2 opened a talkpage section: Talk:The_Queen's_Gambit_(miniseries)#"Emotional_problems"_is_a_crap_term. Let's start with the fact that the section header is again a WP:BATTLEGGROUND violation, and as such is not acceptable, but opening a talkpage section does not make up for edit warring..

Comments:
This is a report about edit warring in general, with a 3RR violation, including battleground attitude. Preferred outcome, warning to MaxBrowne2 to not edit war and be less confrontational. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – Only two reverts. Claiming that an IP is MaxBrowne2 would need evidence. If you believe that 'crap term' in a talk page header is a battleground violation you could ask the editor to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston What do you mean "no violation"? I remind you that according to WP:EDIT WAR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Debresser (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:93.164.22.202 reported by User:CloseDatMouf (Result: Blocked)

Page:

• Music Played by Humans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elita (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gary Barlow discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Let Me Go (Gary Barlow song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Since I Saw You Last (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Superhero (Gary Barlow song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: 93.164.22.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• MPBH: [11]
• Elita: [12]
• Discography: [13] (last proper version before a slew of vandalism occurred)
• Let Me Go: [14]
• SISYL: [15]
• Superhero: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Music Played by Humans: adding fake Denmark position and removing sourced year-end UK position

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Elita (song): adding fake Denmark position with a bunch of obsolete category tags

1. [21] (revert by another IP but I suspect they're the same person considering they're both reverting to the revisions with the fake positions)
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25] (revert by the above IP)
6. [26]
7. [27]

Gary Barlow discography: adding a slew of fake positions, certifications and shifting numerous songs around such as songs from 'featured artist' to 'lead artist'

1. [28] (revert by the above IP)
2. [29]
3. [30]

Let Me Go (Gary Barlow song): adding fake and unsourced Denmark position and removing sourced UK certifications table

1. [31]

Since I Saw You Last: adding fake and unsourced Denmark position and replacing a review without explanation

1. [32]

Superhero (Gary Barlow song): adding fake and unsourced UK and Scotland position

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35] (revert by another account, again I suspect it's the same person)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] (by another user on their talk page)

Comments:

93.164.22.202 is inserting fake chart positions (most commonly that of Denmark) and information on the pages of Gary Barlow's songs and randomly removing sourced material without explanation. I am sure to fact-check everything before reverting and if they were actual, true, sourced positions I wouldn't have a problem with it but unfortunately they are not. They have already violated the 3-revert-rule on Music Played by Humans by reverting four times in 24 hours a few days ago so I sent them a warning and advised them to self-revert but they did not seem interested. I also suspect they operate on more than one IP and account based on the behavioral similarities between them. They also seem to have been reported for edit warring before. T  CloseDatMouf 16:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 6 months. Long term edit warring on music articles. User has hardly ever posted on a talk page and does not leave edit summaries. Adding fake chart positions is considered falsification. Leave me a message if you think they also use other IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do, thank you so much! T  CloseDatMouf 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ThereWillBeTime reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Season of the Witch (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThereWillBeTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39] (initial removal of content)
2. [40] and [41] (significant removals of content by IP editor that ThereWillBeTime has declared is them, so I believe this counts toward this editor's revert total)
3. [42] (first revert of my initial disagreement)
4. [43] (reverting my major restoration of the content)
5. [44] (revert of my reminder to follow WP:BRD as I believed they missed it/weren't aware, the only reason I reverted a second time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
This user removed an entire section on Season of the Witch (song), claiming that it was not notable, then opened a section on the talk page stating so. They have not claimed any significant reasons as to its removal, just an opinion. I was notified that the image I uploaded for the cover version of this song was orphaned, and thus contributed at the discussion and made clear my disagreement, especially in the absence of any reason other than "its notability is quite small", so reverted. This editor then reverted me in two parts, and I reverted this, reminding them to "please follow WP:BRD", as I thought they weren't aware of the protocol considering they're a relatively new editor and may have missed this in my response, but was reverted again and had my reverts called "bad faith". I stopped, and made this report. The user is also editing in tandem with their IP address, 173.88.250.97, which they have declared is their IP address on their user talk page, but I have told them to not do this as it can be considered sockpuppetry. They have very clearly gone over WP:3RR, making more than five reverts if all their registered account and IP's reverts are taken into consideration. Ss112 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm not supposed to comment here. I couldn't find any articles regarding how to respond to reports and I did see users who had been reported in the past commented on their related report. I just wanted to mention that I feel at least two of these statements are demonstratively false; one, I have never claimed this cover was not notable. I also have claimed fact based reasons as to why I made the edits I did. I've already written quite a bit about this incident on my talk page, and on the article talk page,, and I do trust you, the admins, you review it all, so I'm not going to rehash it all here. I of course trust and respect your judgement, but I do feel I am being misrepresented strongly here and this editor has been very uncivil towards me, both in the article discussion and on my own talk page.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Season of the Witch (song) has been fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to decide what to do. See WP:DR if you can't reach agreement there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikezarco reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: Already blocked)

Page: En gång i tiden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Benjamin Ingrosso discography#Albums"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC) to 16:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999503216 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
   2. 16:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999493060 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
3. 18:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999107402 by Doggy54321 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is trying to challenge the result of an AfD for En gång i tiden that ended in a redirect, and this account is suspected to have been compromised, as seen here. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Their account is compromised, it was a hacker making those edits, not Mikezarco themselves. I have filed a request for an indef block at WP:ANI#User:Mikezarco. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely as the account is compromised. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Zomgrose reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned)

Page: List of biggest box-office bombs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zomgrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts: -

1. [48] (Jan 11@00:12)
2. [49]

-

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]

-

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60] (Jan 11@00:53)

- -

1. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Diff of 3RRNB tp notice: [63]

Comments:
Editor reverted three different users (2 editors, 1 bot) with a total of 13 edits to the same content in a 41 minute span. This user makes extensive use of edit summaries while warring, but refuses to engage on talk pages, despite personal request to do so. - wolf 08:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zomgrose is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at List of biggest box-office bombs without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:197.243.52.141 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )

Page: Second Congo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 197.243.52.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Zimbabwe */"
2. 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"
3. 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"
4. 15:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Second Congo War."
2. 15:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Second Congo War."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Angryskies reported by User:Pyrope (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

Discussion started at their talk page rather than the article page, as this seems to be a problem of editor behaviour in general rather than simply a content dispute at this one page. They almost tripped over 3RR on January 7, but obviously decided to resume the edit war a couple of days later (see edits here). Editor seems to be engaged upon a long-running campaign to ensure that they squeeze the UK home country into articles, to what end I don't know. They have tried to quote WP:PLACEDAB at me, but my reading suggests this supports my position rather than theirs. Complete failure to engage and explain their justification other than these brief edit summaries. Pyrope 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: All edits have been made in good faith and are factual and within parameters of WP:EL regarding the change from http to https link (which was reverted). "Woking, England." is used in the first sentence of the article without and issue, as this hasn't been reverted. The user has made a couple of disparaging remarks in the body of text: [71] and in edit summaries such as in this example [72] I pointed out WP:NPA in the last edit summary reverting the users previous edit. Angryskies (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I always assume good faith until it is demonstrated that this is not the case. Your failure to engage and justify your edits, despite polite request in line with BRD, was this demonstration, therefore I find your protestation of good faith now to be a little rich. If you don't like having your logic disparaged then perhaps it is time to stop using fallacious logic, and it is certainly time to stop aggressively trying to cow other editors with bluelink policy bafflegab that either doesn't apply (e.g. the EL invocation here) or is counter to your argument. Slinging around policy links without having read and understood same is also an act of demonstrated bad faith. Pyrope 18:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example of WP:NPA Angryskies (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as everything I have commented on above was either your edits or your demonstrated behaviour as an editor, it looks like NPA is another policy document that you really ought to familiarize yourself with before throwing out accusations yourself. Pyrope 19:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Ev Thom (Result: Semi)

Page: The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:48, January 10, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
2. 05:29, January 11, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
3. 16:51, January 11, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
4. 22:25, January 11, 2021 m (Nope) Tag: Manual revert

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

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

Comments:
User has been reverting every edit to the page since November 13, 2020. Their edit summaries are mostly either "Restored" or something that can be said on a talk page. They clearly have a WP:OWN problem (If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page). If I were to restore the version from November 2020 (three months ago), there wouldn’t be much of a difference. They revert everything, I’m not being dramatic. Look at the page history. Furthermore, they are suspected (but not assumed) to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 26 hours, as shown in the diffs above. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Endorse report - I looked in the revision history and the user has made an absurd number of reverts, both approaching violating 3RR and over a long period of time. This is pretty clearly disruptive editing to me. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months, due to material being added by IPs without proper sources. Hotwiki was reverting some of these IPs. If there is still a dispute on this article (even without the IP contributions) please report again. This is now the 17th time the article has been semied, which might indicate a need for long term semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jkowal43 reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: EC protection)

Page: Marjorie Taylor Greene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jkowal43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76] Edit summary of "Removed Hyper Partisan Editing by Valarian5, who only seems to positively liberal wikipages and denegrate conservative pages."
3. [77]
4. [78]

1. possibly related IP revert? [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments: user appears to be stridently insisting on editing against consensus. @Muboshgu: semiprotected the page, but they slipped through because the account had made a single edit at Guantanamo Bay in 2007 before being inert until yesterday[82]. User has also made disruptive edits to Nancy Mace [83].

• Result: Indef EC protection for the article. There is a dispute on whether this congresswoman should be described as a conspiracy theorist, due to statements that she made. It is possible she may have revised her position later. I've applied indefinite EC protection under WP:ARBAP2. Please pay attention to the sourcing requirements of our WP:BLP policy when discussing whether 'conspiracy theorist' should remain in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:IHateAccounts reported by User:Jkowal43 (Result: No violation)

Page: Marjorie Taylor Greene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IHateAccounts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Undid revision 999822512 by Jkowal43 (talk) revert; obviously disruptive with misspelling, citation to a non-WP:RS

Diffs of the user's reverts: Update had no "mis-spelling" Removed biased, out of date viewpoints Clarifying titles are not "disruptive"

1. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation. Appears to be a retaliatory counter-report based on the above report. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Simon T8W reported by User:GSS (Result: )

Page: Kingsley Fletcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Simon T8W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "undid "sourced content" from dead links of an unreputable website."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingsley Fletcher."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Simon T8W is repeatedly removing sourced contents and edit warring with multiple users. Looking at the history of Kingsley Fletcher they are doing this since October 2017‎ and possibly abusing IP addresses. GSS ^💬 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)