Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Woovee reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Trouts all around)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

– 7 Sep, 21:48 UTC – [2] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 7 Sep, 23:00 UTC – [3] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 7 Sep, 23:20 UTC – [4] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
– 8 Sep, 00:29 UTC – [5] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Woovee has been removing the helpful display of talk page example text under discussion on the talk page, with the result that newcomers must take an extra step and examine a diff to understand or comment on the issue. My take on the situation is that Woovee is editing tendentiously, trying to make the process more difficult in order to influence the result by attracting fewer comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet didn't file the rfc, Lynchenberg did it. Consequently, Binksternet doesn't have any right to rewrite it and add a dubious long text to support Lynchenberg's view. Binksternet takes this issue personally as they had advised Lynchenberg earlier [9], & judging their reply, they want Lynchenberg's view to win. The current rfc version [10] includes the question "Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included?" which was written by Lynchenberg, and as Lynchenberg forgot to include the diff, it looks like a good compromise to add "refering this edit" with a wikilink including the diff, under the question of this rfc. May I add that Lynchenberg doesn't revert the actual presentation of the rfc, as one can see it in the history of the talk. So the edit warring is largely due to Binksternet who doesn't want to compromise. Woovee (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Woovee. Regardless of the correctness of your intentions, you seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article's talk page. There may still be time for you to promise to stop reverting the talk page. Otherwise, a block seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:EdJohnston, Binksternet has done three reverts in 24 hours on that talk page: it is edit warring as well. They didn't have any right to add a dubious long text in the presentation to support their friend's claim - this rfc was not theirs. This rfc is presented in a manner that doesn't present well the issue to my view, I will ask Lynchenberg to rephrase it tomorrow. Woovee (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee argues that I should not have touched Lynchenberg's clumsy RfC post, as only Lynchenberg had the right to do so. Two contrary actions by Woovee speak against this argument: The first is that Woovee accepted my taking the RfC out from the end of one post where it was buried, and giving it its own section with a Level 2 header. The second is that Woovee made their own modification of the RfC text, changing "this material" to "this edit".[11] So it's clear that Woovee accepts that good-faith editors are allowed to modify an RfC to make it more presentable.

The non-neutral thing that Woovee is doing is making it more difficult for newcomers to understand and comment on the issue. Woovee is trying to prevent a new consensus from forming, and is impeding the process. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring must be avoided, but I strongly disagreed with the appendix you put below the presentation. I did 4RR in a row, you did 3RR in a row.Woovee (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

to both of you; too trivial to issue blocks. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KidAd reported by User:X4n6 (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[12]
[13]
[14]
[diff]

Warned user not to 3RR in edit summary. [15]

Recent block for edit warring: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments First this user complained that the edit I made was "covered, almost verbatim" in a different section. Then the user re-edited it with a clear pov. When I responded that the sources I used were literally from today and the background was needed per BALANCE, the user then tried to claim I needed to follow ONUS. I responded that ONUS was unnecessary - (because by the user's own claim, the info was ALREADY in the article.) I warned the user not to 3RR and said the user could always RfC the multiple-sourced edit. Instead, the user continued to war and reverted it again. So here we are. X4n6 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from involved user: Please note that I made two reverts (one and two). This is an independent edit. The more pressing issue here is clearly that X4n6 has outright refused to follow WP:ONUS, which states the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Instead of gaining consensus at my urging, they instead claimed here that the background is needed per WP:BALANCE. That one is going to need some explanation. KidAd • SPEAK 02:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response

My comments and actions are already explained above. The content and edit log speak for themselves. X4n6 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We both made two reverts, but only one of us violated WP:ONUS. And it certainly wasn't me. KidAd • SPEAK 02:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made 3 edits changing the content. And the BALANCE was needed because the re-edit you left was sheer pov pandering. What would make you think leaving a candidate's controversial tweet to stand by itself, during a campaign, would be just fine, and need no context for balance? Anyone who can misapply ONUS as easily as you did, has surely been around long enough to understand NEUTRAL. X4n6 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I make three reverts or 3 edits changing the content? And this edit is problematic for several reasons. You use this AOL piece, which doesn't mention Janice McGeachin's name, to combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. That's obvious WP:SYNTH. Of course, this discussion should be occurring on the article's talk page, not here. KidAd • SPEAK 03:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, your complaint was that the material was "covered, almost verbatim" elsewhere in the article. Then it was that it wasn't included at all and needed consensus. Then it was that the ONUS was on me, despite the fact that it was all uncontroversial material from multiple RS. Now your latest is that somehow makes it SYNTH. So which is it? Nevermind, I'm done. If SYNTH was really your issue, why are you just bringing it up now? Why not while you were warring?? Furthermore, had you been seriously trying to edit collaboratively, all you would have needed to do is say that was your concern. Then I could have given you this ABC article that mentions the COVID spike in Idaho, their hospitals rationing care AND her name and that tweet all in the same article. Instead, all you're proving now is that you know your way around the rules, and you're desperate to find anything to throw against the wall to try to make something stick in your defense. But when you violated BALANCE and NEUTRAL, you knew exactly what you were doing and did so intentionally. You even tried to sucker me into a 3RR with you. Sorry, been around too long. We're done. I'll let admins deal with you and all your wikilawyering. They can already guess I'd recommend a significant block - not just for the warring, but for the attitude and total lack of remorse. IMO, if you get away with this now, you'll likely repeat and become an even more quarrelsome and tendentious nightmare for other users later. You obviously learned nothing from that 48hr block for warring in February. X4n6 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that non-admins could recommend punishments for other non-admins, but I will be the bigger person. Though X4n6's behavior has been poor, especially for an editor with their experience, I do not believe that they should be blocked for it. I do however, think that this user should be warned about following policy from an user with more authority than me, as they have made it perfectly clear that they are unwilling to acknowledge anything I have to say. KidAd • SPEAK 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor

There's a beautiful place for you two to to work this out. It's Talk:Janice McGeachin. Unfortunately, KidAd has telegraphed that s/he is not interested in any discussion by this edit summary: [18]. It seems s/he does not like to discuss things in general- see edit summaries:

as I've observed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain who you are exactly, but I'm sorry you feel that way. Based on those diffs, it seems like you were trying to make changes in an article based on WP:OR. Unfortunately, my memory on that specific issue is a bit foggy. As for "There's a beautiful place for you two to to work this out. It's Talk:Janice McGeachin," I am 100% in agreement with you. However, and I cannot say this enough, WP:ONUS still applies. If X4n6 is willing to follow that policy, I am more-than-willing to participate in a friendly discussion with them. However, ONUS is very clear. The responsibility to start that discussion is on X4n6, not me. I must admit that I did not closely read X4n6's WP:CHUNK, but I still fear that they misunderstand the concept of ONUS. Nowhere in that policy does it state that ONUS does not apply when a user is attempting to insert duplicate material in the article. It mystifies me that X4n6 has adopted this argument to support their blatant disregard for ONUS. KidAd • SPEAK 20:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not at all correcct - you kicked me off your talk page when I warned you after you added bunch of unsourced WP:BLP info including publishing a person's WP:DOB without a source [23] and you had just been warned about doing that. Let's see, how many elements of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing are we observing in your behavior? Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate allegations of tendentious editing or your maximization of my edit that added an unsourced birthdate. I am not perfect, and I am always open to accepting my mistakes. Howrver, per WP:DRC, If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. I am well within my rights to remove any comments or notices from my talk page as I see fit. KidAd • SPEAK 20:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone really need more proof that you, KidAd, do not "play well with others?" It's always them, never you. For someone who claims to accept your mistakes, there's no evidence of it. And for the last time re: my complaint, you should probably retire your ONUS claims - before someone actually reads ONUS. Because they'll read the last sentence: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." "Disputed content" - and not, per your latest claim - "duplicate material." Problem is, there was no content (facts) in dispute. The info was all reliably sourced. And again, you claimed the info was already in the article. Therefore it obviously wasn't disputed content. So no ONUS. And no SYNTH either. And likely, no OR or anything else you want to try to accuse the other editor of as deflection from your own behavior. But we do now have a SECOND editor (and retired admin), calling you out for your tendentiousness. And the fact is, your attitude, bad wikilawyering and repeated misuse/abuse of policies & guidelines, coupled with your recent block history for the very same thing, do very little to defend you. And IMO, do even less to recommend leniency. X4n6 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:KidAd is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Janice McGeachin without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. In 2019, KidAd was banned from the topic of American politics under WP:ARBAP2. Later that year, they were blocked for as long as 3 months under terms of the same decision. Though no ban is currently in effect, an inability to edit neutrally in this area might call for a renewed ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HiChrisBoyleHere reported by User:Joplin201017 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:29, 8 September 2021: [25]
11:29, 8 September 2021: [26]
11:30, 8 September 2021: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Comments:
I discussed with HiChrisBoyleHere that there is a consensus from Wikipedia on how COVID-19 statistical charts should be presented to allow friendly visualisation of the charts for mobile users and also to avoid unnecessary scrolling on the statistical charts. Most Wikipedia pages maintaining statistical charts of the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective countries (please see Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina and Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil for reference) maintain statistical charts in linear format that allow visualisation of them in any device without too much detail on them. @HiChrisBoyleHere: has not provided alternatives to these issues discussed on their talk page, argumenting that the page has been maintained in their decided format for more than 2 years and ignoring previous consensus on how to maintain charts for the COVID-19 pandemic in Wikipedia pages of individual countries. He has reverted every of my edits including my update on statistical data today. Joplin201017 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my sentences you don't understand? I'm okay with less-than-950-width charts IF you could fix the dates issue (I've tried myself and didn't work). The problem is you couldn't do that, could you? Have you seen how horrible are the charts without spaces between the dates? And also which consensus saying that? Why didn't you send me the link? Why out of million of people who have seen the article, only you who make big fuss about it? I only agree if the suggestion improves the articles (such as splitting the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia into two parts (2020 and 2021)), but this one makes it worse (AGAIN, it could be better if you COULD fix the dates, which something you couldn't do). The articles you send look great because they have spaces between the dates. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HiChrisBoyleHere: I have fixed the dates of the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia page as you requested so now all the charts are in linear format for better visualisation on mobile with the dates being displayed in months. If you revert these contributions from other users as stated in this Wikipedia policy, including any updates of statistical data from reliable sources, you might be blocked due to edit warring. Thanks. Joplin201017 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emily19911991 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Sock blocked)

User being reported: Emily19911991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043104040 by Bluesatellite (talk) I have provided sources stating that! You are violating the rule by refusing to engage on the talk page. I have also started a RfC because you’re just playing games."
10:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043102986 by Bluesatellite (talk) No, you do and someone else thinks it’s clunky. Reliable sources overrule your opinion anyway."
09:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043092522 by Binksternet (talk) A consensus must be reached first. Your opinions expressed in the talk page carry no weight - stick to the reliable sources"
08:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043091748 by Binksternet (talk) Check the talk page, I have provided sources. Don’t revert until discussed properly on the talk page."
07:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043081394 by Ianmacm (talk) Wrong. The discussion was created two days and that isn’t a sufficient enough time to reach a consensus. I have given my input on the talk page."
07:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043076308 by Ianmacm (talk) Reach a consensus first"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 23:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC) to 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Elvis Presley

Comments:

6 reverts in less than 6 hours, with the last revert coming after the user was warned about 3RR. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oyond reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Blocked one week. I also blocked the user's IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saiteja1705 reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

User being reported: Saiteja1705 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Konda Polam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is removing the poster of the film, either by just removing it from the infobox entirely or trying to replace it with non-free images uploaded to Commons improperly. BOVINEBOY2008 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:150.101.89.147 reported by wolf (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

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

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

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. There was an attempt at discussion with this user, but engagement from them is limited to curt, single-sentenced comments that are basically of the; "this is how it is cuz I say so" type. The user was also provided information and links to relevant guidelines, which given the timeframe and their blunt, uncooperative replies, it would seem they didn't read the guidelines or just chose to ignore them.

They were also apprised of wp:Consensus and wp:Dispute Resolution, but instead chose to continue edit warring. They given no indication of a willingness to discuss, and also given every indication of an intent to continue edit warring. - wolf 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a brief reading of the article. You on the other hand failed to do this. I also took this to the talk page. Thanks.150.101.89.147 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. The IP reverted 3x in a 24-hour period. The fourth revert listed above occurred two days earlier. Thewolfchild also reverted 3x, although only twice in a 24-hour period. I strongly urge the parties to resolve the content dispute on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahmed88z reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:36, 21 July 2021 GreenC bot

Diffs of the user's reverts (from most recent):

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

See also: The editor was blocked for edit warring: Revision as of 17:11, 5 August 2021 Ponyo (talk | contribs) (→‎Block notice: new section)

The editor was further blocked for block evasion: Revision as of 17:19, 11 August 2021 Favonian (talk | contribs) (You have been blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts.)}}

Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell--Ahmed88z (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:
The scope of the article is an invasion that occurred between 9-16 September 1940 with the capture of Sidi Barrani. While the Italians were subsequently expelled from Egypt in December of that year, that operation is outside the scope of the article. There is no dispute in the sources that the invasion was an Italian victory (even if short-lived). The guidance at MOS:MIL and at the template documentation is quite explicit on the subject of the result parameter. It has been put into place to avoid such quibbling. The editor has been referred to the guidance on multiple occasions - both in talk posts and in edit summaries. However, it would appear to me to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It may be asserted that, because of their prior block, the editor was reasonably aware of 3RR (and the consequences) prior to the most recent notification. The actions of the editor, beyond 3RR, appear to me to be tendentious and disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ADOS Pride reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "."
Consecutive edits made from 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo fix"
3. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
4. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
5. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
6. 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Fixed content"
Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Corrected content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Please stop */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* African American history erasure */"

Comments:

Less than 24 hours after their recent block expired, they are back edit warring again. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef, for continuing the same violation and ignoring all advice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaccWiki reported by User:Carl Francis (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:
Known sockpuppet. Carl Francis (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE ACCUSATIONS. The reason why I returned/restored/reverted my revision, because the revisions you returned were incorrect, I just fixed it, and what's wrong there, I'm also an editor, I have the right to edit the wikipedia article, not just you. And one more thing, I don't use multiple accounts, I only have one account. MACCWIKI (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PTS 188 reported by User:93.136.76.166 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff][54]
[diff][55]
[diff][56]
[diff][57]

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

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

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

Comments:
This IP User is Seriously Don't understand That Croatian Goverment Did not signed the contract yet. You can Ask Fox 52 that he also tried to revent many times from this User. I would Remind that user 93.136.76.166 Threaten me also.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards