Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tacyarg (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 24 February 2024 (Adding new report for 38.65.249.252.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Horatius At The Bridge reported by User:Thenightaway (Result: Page protected)

    The edit warring behavior has already been resolved, please discuss article content at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and raise conduct concerns at WP:ANI if necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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: Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Horatius_At_The_Bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2] 12 Feb
    2. [3] 12 Feb
    3. [4] 15 Feb
    4. [5] 15 Feb
    5. [6] 16 Feb
    6. [7] 16 Feb (Violation of 3RR)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

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

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

    Comments:

    The editor keeps removing multiple paragraphs of long-standing reliably sourced content while refusing to explain what specifically is inaccurate in the content. The editor vaguely claims that the content is vandalism, racist or that the multiple reliable sources do not specifically mention the subject of the article (they all explicitly mention the subject). The editor was warned about their 3RR violation, but refuses to self-revert. Thenightaway (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Thenightaway (and Horatius At The Bridge), you'll need a third opinion or an RfC, not further reverts. WP:BLPRESTORE applies and the content may not be restored without consensus.
    Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has offered no specific examples of what's wrong with the content aside from falsely claiming that the subject is not mentioned in any of the sources (the subject is mentioned in every source). How are these good-faith BLP objections? Thenightaway (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The concerns voiced in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1206707030 and on the talk page (current revision) go beyond verifiability concerns. This seems to be a question of whether the content has due weight, and such conflicts are not resolvable by treating the other user as a liar ([11]) and vandal (questioning their good faith). You may be completely right about whether the content should be included, but the approach is unsuitable to BLP editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your helpful comments in clarifying my objection to the newspaper sources cited should have been in terms of Due Weight/NPOV.
    I believe they are referencing articles which manufactured defamatory claims as part of a 10 year reputational damage campaign against Man City by its commercial rivals and their client media. It is however carefully planned and coordinated so sadly no surprise to see the unfounded allegations extend into Wikipedia.
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/sheikh-mansour
    As a declared supporter of the football club concerned I do understand that my own NPOV is questionable and it would be better if others took this attempt to protect the pages forward.
    Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations. I am not going to start a lengthy elaborate process to determine whether reliably sourced content can be included on the page. You get your way: all negative content can be whitewashed from the page. Apparently, your reasons (all RS are engaged in a conspiracy against the subject and inaccurately claiming that none of the sources mention the subject) count as good-faith BLP objections. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a ten year reputational damage campaign by commercial rivals and "client media" - unless you can provide evidence of it? What it actually is is factual information that you dislike, showing the large-scale Sportswashing that Manchester City and Sheikh Mansour have been participating in since 2009.
    The Guardian, The Athletic, The Times, The Independent, Amnesty International and UEFA. Are you claiming that all of these organisations and outlets are 'client media' of your 'commercial rivals' aka other clubs? Because that seems extremely unlikely to me.
    I understand that, as a supporter of Abu Dhabi FC, you might not like critical coverage of your football team, but the fact is these are legitimate news sources and all have relevance to the articles. ScouseSocialist (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (The edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for discussions about the article's content. That should probably be discussed at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan instead.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is currently engaging in canvassing on outside forums to help him "protect Man City/Sheikh Mansour etc pages" [12] At what point is it clear that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia?Thenightaway (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be very interesting to know where their IP address is based. It smells of a deliberate campaign to remove negative press, probably by a PR agency hired by the club or its government owners. ScouseSocialist (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2024 (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.

    User:2605:B40:13E7:F600:4853:7CAA:3670:F77 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

    Page: Metal-Head (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2605:B40:13E7:F600:4853:7CAA:3670:F77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208522201 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) PLEASE DO NOT JUST REVERT See Talk:Metal-Head#Seriously though..."
    2. 21:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Seriously though, this is 100% plot"
    3. 21:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208518032 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) Please see my previous summary"
    4. 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "True, they are *technically* non-primary, but they might as well be primary; they are completely in-universe plot"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Metal-Head."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Seriously though... */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week /64 blocked. Their explanations for their edits on talk are spectacularly unconvincing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to @Pppery’s attack at @Daniel Case accusing them of favoritism when they deleted their comment but i’ll still reply. As i said at Talk:Metal-Head, I was patrolling recent changes dealing with IPs engaging in identical behavior, i came across another IP blanking a page prior to a consensus. I warned them & they continue to blank the page. I was not coming from a place of bad faith. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stromzfiber reported by User:Wikishovel (Result: Sock blocked)

    Page: Mushtaq Chhapra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Citation being added"
    2. 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "Proper Citation added, crucial information for Pakistani historians."
    4. 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) to 05:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stromzfiber

    Comments:

    User:Stromzfiber's edits so far have only been adding unsourced puffery to Mushtaq Chhapra (and List of Pakistanis by net worth [13]), reverting not only my and User:Drmies' removals of unsourced claims, but also fixes to references etc. User:Stromzfiber has also not yet replied about what looks like sockpuppetry by new SPA User:Wikibot1947: [14], [15]. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sir, edits made have been cited and are historical and widely known factual information in Pakistan. Furthermore I appreciate the help for proper guidance and understand how to adhere to community guidelines.
    best regards,
    Geo Stromzfiber (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:웬디러비 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: Blocked from page for three months)

    Page: Template:Campaignbox Idlib ceasefire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 웬디러비 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    Repeatedly reverting conflicts of Syrian civil war from the template in the span of one month. Discussion not leading anywhere despite being clearly told that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 3 months from article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel CaseIf you read debate, Ecrusized also didn't give the main reason why those incidents are included in " Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war" and he even didn't mention "US intervention in the Syrian civil war" in those debate, which means he also makes false reason. i asked him why he thought he is thinking this article is included as part of Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, but the answer was "it is Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war". Dear Administrator, I think Ecrusized should be blocked well, if I am blocked because neither of us didn't give a sufficient effort to discuss article sincerely. Wendylove (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over that discussion again it seems he was showing more good faith than you. Granted he shouldn't have been reverting so much while discussing, but then you went to the extent of resuming just because he hadn't answered you in a long time. You could have gone to his talk page, or pinged him ... but you did neither. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and admit that I didn't ping him nor talked in his page. But what I thought at that time was that he threatened me to block my edit, because he didn't reply to my answer as well. What I just wanted to ask was "There is no evidence that 'that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war.' so give me the evidence about it". And his reply was "it is the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war."
    I searched the other articles related to this article. There was no mention about it. Neither Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war nor US intervention in the Syrian civil war mentioned about it. Neither of them. He just kept saying it is the part of them, but he didn't give the resources. For my perspective, he just forced me to agree with his opinion.
    Okay, I would admit this block, but I want same measure to Ecrusized as well. I didn't know how this "Edit Warring" works exactly, but what I keep saying is, he also give a point to Edit warring. Please consider that as well. Wendylove (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.148.94.117 reported by User:ExclusiveEditor (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Albania at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 91.148.94.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208968727 by DrowssapSMM (talk)no sense for this section, at least not on this page"
    2. 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208968065 by DrowssapSMM (talk)"
    3. 18:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208967372 by DrowssapSMM (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania and many never played for albania"
    4. 18:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208967035 by ExclusiveEditor (talk)"
    5. 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208947552 by ThaddeusSholto (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Albania at the Olympics."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:91.148.94.117 "Warning: Edit warring on Albania at the Olympics."

    Comments:

    I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oz346 and User:Petextrodon reported by User:Cossde (Result: No violation)

    Page: 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Oz346 [25] (cited content removed)
    2. Oz346 [26] (cited content removed)
    3. Oz346 [27] (cited content removed)
    4. Petextrodon [28] (cited content removed)

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30], [31]

    Comments:

    Both Oz346 and Petextrodon, has been reverting content that I have been adding with citations. Cossde (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user has reverted the content 4 times [32], [33], [34] and,[35] whereas, I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, and refrained from making any further reverts. Oz346 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After which Petextrodon has proceeded to revert. Cossde (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my first revert but your last one was your fourth, even after being warned about edit warring and while in middle of a discussion and a third party opinion request. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Oz346 and Petextrodon has been preventing my content additions with selectively removing content that they do not agree with. Petextrodon reverted my last additions after Oz346 third party opinion request. I made a request for admin attention [36] several days ago. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I agree that it seems the sides are at an impasse. You need to get other editors involved to reach a consensus. I see one of you requested 3O, but I would also suggest bringing it up on the relevant project talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: I declined the 3O because there are three editors involved, and I suggested they use the WP:DRN. Temporary full protection of the article might be an option, but maybe there hasn't been enough article space back and forth to justify it. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sparklecitylover reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Sparkle City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) to 02:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      1. 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 02:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) to 02:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      1. 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 02:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "Only warning: Image-related vandalism on Sparkle City."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:100.17.31.228 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked)

    Page: X-Men (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 100.17.31.228 (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]
    5. [42]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on X-Men (film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP repeatedly reverting to preferred version of Cast listing despite multiple warnings (that they may not be seeing). DonIago (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Same behavior can be seen at X2 (film), where they are likewise reverting to a preferred version of a cast list that is not MOS compliant; I left an initial explanation on their talkpage explaining why their edits were being reverted. As DonIago states, they may not be aware of talkpage messages; however, they are certainly aware that they have been (almost) daily reinstating their edits. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – 48 hours. The IP has continued to edit this article while the report was open, without making any response or using any talk pages. The majority of their last 50 edits have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Desmay reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209656563 by VQuakr (talk) nope"
    2. 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209656067 by VQuakr (talk) sentence is cited"
    3. 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209636447 by VQuakr (talk) zero consensus to blank section"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tristan Tate."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

    Comments:

    • I'll leave this to the 3R experts, but I did just warn Desmay and their partner for the continued BLP violations. BTW I've rarely seen a user talk page with so many DS warnings--was the BLP warning in that effusive bouquet? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies:, my gratitude goes to you. I won't be touching the article again. desmay (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for the rest of the day by Ponyo. The editors involved also seem to have settled this amicably. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr vili reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    2. 21:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "A source about his children is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, additionally you have also removed a number of sources throughout your editing that backed up the statement regarding his children, which I will be restoring with additional sources afterwards. If you wish to argue this, please do on the talk page"
    3. 21:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Please cite reasons as why you believe tuko.co.ke is not a reliable source"
    4. 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Add hair transplant section back?"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ re"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

    Comments:

    • Something about the Tates just brings out everyone swinging, it seems. I can take this to BLPN if the tag teaming seems better suited to more watchers instead of AN3, just LMK. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I believe it is VQuakr who is edit warring here, Tate is known to have undergone a hair transplantation surgery - there are atleast 5 sources that credibly verify this - I believe Tristan Tate has also stated this himself a few times.
    He has been repeatedly removing otherwise reliable sources with no justification besides citing "unreliability" with no explanation.
    Sections I wrote on his children are not unreliable, OR controversial, are well sourced, and Tristan Tate himself has confirmed he has children. Mr Vili talk 00:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mr vili, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully-protected the article for 24 hours. WP:BLP is a complicated policy; "I have a source so my info sticks" is not the foundation on which the policy is built.-- Ponyobons mots 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think that was the right thing to do. Anyhow I'm pretty much done with this article, my original intention was merely to send it through AfD to gain community consensus. I suppose we will await consensus in the talk page. Mr Vili talk 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It had sufficient consensus as not ready for mainspace considering that it had been declined at AfC seven times (!) and was blatantly not ready for mainspace as a BLP, before you dragged me to dispute resolution for declining and asked a third party to break the main rule of AfC and submit it anyway so it could immediately get AfD'd. And since it was not ready for mainspace as a BLP, which has a bunch of other considerations about sourcing, it forced a bunch of people to do work for you that was not addressed in the draft. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for the rest of the day by Ponyo, per report on other editor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jab1998 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Barbary Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Jab1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "The US permanently defeated the pirates once and for all in 1815"
    5. 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "The us won the Barbary wars. The second and final war was an irrefutable American victory and ended the conflict period once and for all"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Barbary Wars."
    2. 03:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ Reply"
    3. 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ new section"
    2. 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    They have admitted that their first edit was a revert. They know that because they have been arguing about the same on the First Barbary War for a while. Incidentally, I happened to agree with them on the result of that war (see my comment there), but since this article is more complicated and doesn't need the optional result or a useless edit war, I asked them to seek consensus for it, but they refused and kept edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:38.65.249.252 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: )

    Page: Tim Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 38.65.249.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209845968 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User was blocked earlier in the month for 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content to this BLP. User has added the same content twice since block expired. Has not been receptive to warning on talk page, responding "Citing common knowledge is redundant and unnecessary. Stop trolling". Tacyarg (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1209941621"