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 StrangeApparition2011 (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 10 November 2022 (→‎User: reported by User:StrangeApparition2011 (Result: )). 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:Lauriswift911 reported by User:Dylnuge (Result: No violation)

    Page: 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [1]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC) on Talk:2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes "/* Edit Warring over Casualties */ new section"

    Comments:

    This article has had back and forth edit warring between various users and anonymous IPs since September, primarily over the number of casualties to list in the infobox. The situation appears to be that various numbers have been provided for casualties on the Tajikistan side of the conflict, from both governments involved as well as a third source. Since edit warring was disrupting the page (breaking existing citations, adding citations with things like a bare link to bbc.com, etc) and the sources seemed to genuinely be in conflict, I proposed listing multiple on the infobox with clear indication of which party was claiming them—this was also the state of the page before the edit warring began (e.g. at [2]).

    That said, I don't want to get into an edit war myself here; I have no stake in this beyond wanting to repair information that doesn't match what's written in the cited sources. I have attempted to bring editors involved in the conflict to the talk page, but no one is engaging there. The height of the conflict seems to have died down, but User:Lauriswift911 continues to change the number listed as "per Tajikistan" to 84 despite the fact that that contradicts the source and isn't listed elsewhere. Nothing here is WP:3RR (it's more of a slow-revert war than a fast one), but I don't personally want to be involved in a revert war (and I think adding uncited material doesn't rise to the level of obvious vandalism), so I'd appreciate another editor's eyes on it. Thanks! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (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. as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tyler.904 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Clay Hill, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Tyler.904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    2. 00:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    3. 23:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    4. 23:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    5. 23:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:45, 7 November 2022

    Comments:

    User:Newzild reported by User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (Result: No action)

    Page: Battle of Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Newzild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [3]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]

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

    Diff of user removal of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

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

    Comments: No discussion was initiated on talk page. User made repeated edits despite multiple warnings in edit summaries and warnings posted to user talk page to seek consensus, and cease edit warring. User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99


    Comment by Moxy odd we have this problem across a few articles Reich_Security_Main_Office.... and....Death_of_Adolf_Hitler. Aslo best to edit while logged in ip addition.Moxy- 03:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not blocked Since this seems to have (ahem) died down since yesterday, I do not think any action is necessary at this time. However, if it resumes I think it would be.

    As noted by nominator, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There should be. I refer both of you to MOS:SUICIDE, which says that while the phrase "committed suicide" is not forbidden on enwiki, it is nonetheless strongly discouraged, with alternatives provided (one of which is, in fact "died by suicide"). I for one think you could best settle this by rephrasing to "Hitler and the others took their own lives." But whatever floats your boat. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ririd69 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: No action for now)

    Page: Gavin Williamson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Ririd69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Another user had given warning on user talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok i'll stop. Friend of yours is he? Ririd69 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ririd69: If you want to be blocked for personal attacks, you're well on your way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    how is that a personal attack? Ririd69 (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I await your explanation. I repeat, HOW IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK? Ririd69 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ririd69: The comment could be interpreted as an accusation of collusion. Unfounded accusations against other editors, especially about vandalism, can be deemed to be personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you've been making disruptive edits and now seem to be trying to start a fight, I suggest you back off before you get blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 21:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So block me. Ririd69 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So Gavin's now resigned. Again. Would you like me to update his page? I'll try to maintain your sanctimonious tone in my explanation of his despicable behaviour. Or shall i leave it to Mr Biddulph, whose concern for accuracy in this matter seems so paramount. I meanwhile will address myself to attempting to have his honour rescinded. I'll get back to you with an edit should i be successful. In the meantime feel free to block me. Ririd69 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His resignation doesn't remove his honorific, which is what you're trying to do. So no, don't update his page. — Czello 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1BGhimire reported by User:Yeti Dai (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: KP Sharma Oli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 1BGhimire (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:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User 1BGhimire, blocked on 31st October for disruptive editing and edit warring on article KP Sharma Oli, has once again involved in same. Moreover, speedy deletion nomination of article No, Not Again and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usedtobecool show that the user is interested in creating dispute rather than constructive contributions in wikipedia. Yeti Dai (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TocMan reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: )

    Page: Lee Zeldin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120773769 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
    2. 19:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120772621 by BlueboyLINY (talk) Please follow the consensus on the talk page"
    3. 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120771490 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
    2. 19:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article Structure */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Hey folks, sorry for the trouble. I tried to get BlueboyLINY to engage with me on the talk page but it took days of him repeatedly reverting my edit before he responded, and now he continues to revert my edit without engaging further with me on the article talk page. He has reverted me more frequently and engaged in less responsive discussion than me, although I don't say that to excuse my own participation in the back and forth edits either. I hope we can reach a good and amicable solution - thanks. TocMan (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brotherbenz reported by User:Llammakey (Result: )

    Page: MV Mark W. Barker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120827770 by Llammakey (talk) You were reverted too. I put examples up on the talk pages.."
    2. 01:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120824699 by Llammakey (talk) Keeping to ships name from the shipping companies websitre"
    3. 20:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Changing to the name of the proper name of the vessel from Interlakes website"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on MV Mark W. Barker."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 01:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "/* M/V on vessels. */ comment"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 00:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC) to 01:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Brotherbenz

    Comments:

    I told him to go read pages after I had reverted him. He then just reverted me. He also reverted me on the River-class freighter page too. Llammakey (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am all for accuracy on here, the proper vessels name is the M/V Mark W. Barker. It's even on the Interlake Steamship's website, number of vessels on here are using the M/V format. He reverted me. article even shows M/V to be used.
    Brotherbenz (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no warnings, no attempt to talk it out on the talk page. Just one post then I got reported.. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barton1234 reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Declined)

    Page: Richard H. Ebright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Barton1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:28, 8 November 2022
    2. 20:17, 3 November 2022
    3. 18:51, 3 November 2022

    User WP:OWN reverting others' attempts to reduce WP:OVERCITE or otherwise helpfully improve article (while calling it all "vandalism"):

    1. 10:20, 26 April 2022
    2. 09:44, 13 December 2021
    3. 10:51, 6 July 2021
    4. 12:03, 8 February 2021
    5. 20:39, 25 August 2020
    6. 16:41, 21 August 2020
    7. 09:26, 4 May 2020

    Unilaterally removing "excessive citations" template without discussing on talk after removing a paltry 2 cites from a page that has dozens and dozens:

    1. 18:06, 9 August 2021
    2. 18:05, 9 August 2021

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:43, 4 November 2022 Follow WP:BRD. You are editing against consensus
    2. 01:07, 9 November 2022 (EW template on user talk)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:35, 4 November 2022 @User:Animalparty attempting to resolve other dispute with user never responding
    2. 11:51, 4 November 2022 Me: See above discussion regarding WP:OVERCITE. The consensus here is to remove these many multiple redundant citations. What specifically do you have issues with?

    Attempts to ask about COI, to which the user has never responded (or responded on any talk page for that matter):

    1. 23:05, 10 February 2021 @User:PaleoNeonate on user talk
    2. 11:50, 4 November 2022 (me on article talk)

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

    1. 13:35, 9 November 2022

    Comments:

    This is a weird one. Basically, @User:Barton1234, who creaeted this page, has added dozens and dozens of citations to it of this guy's every paper ever, basically turning it into a CV, even adding "number of citations" to each article, as if it were a faculty bio page extolling the h-factor. Any attempt to bring the page in line with WP:OVERCITE (or improve the article sometimes in other ways) is met with a revert in the style of WP:OWN from this user simply saying "vandalism". They have rarely edited any other page, and typically only as it relates to Ebright, to add Ebright's papers to those other pages, or to basically make them say what Ebright's article says: [11] [12] [13]. Given obvious COI implications, myself and another user have tried to broach the COI topic, to which the user has never responded (indeed, has never responded to anything on any talk page), continuing instead to revert despite consensus on the talk page against their actions.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Veritst1.6 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Veritst1.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Removed false, outdated information."
    2. 21:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Removed outdated information, removed paraphrasing, removed opinion not based in research"
    3. 21:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Removed false information"
    4. 21:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Removes content which has been proven incorrect and outdated."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    New a/c on the rampage; block or maybe semi the page? Bon courage (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    EMDR I was not aware that one was not allowed to remove incorrect & opinion-based information without replacing it. This seems counterproductive to supplying accurate information but I will be happy to gather the correct research and *current* information since I have access to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritst1.6 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:gyalu22, User:RF354, User:borsoka reported by User:Aristeus01 (Result: Nominator warned)

    Pages:
    Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    History of the Romanian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:
    borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    gyalu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    RF354 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Origin of the Romanians: Revision history [diff preferred, link permitted]
    History of the Romanian language: Revision history [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romanian_language#Proto-Romanian [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romanian_language [link]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#%22General_view%22 [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Romanian_language#Anchronism [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Romanian_language#Dispute_between_Aristeus01_and_Gyalu22,_29_October [diff]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RF354#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Borsoka#Again_as_per_polic [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gyalu22#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion [diff]

    Escalation to edit war, supported by hounding tactics (same users approaching same edits collectively and simultaneously, in support of each other), attrition tactics (interspersed reverts and talk sections opened, other users joining afterwards), threats ("edit warring may have serious consequences"), and baiting (one user reverts without participating to talks and another supports the revert in order to have the minority user break the 3RR if reverting again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs)

    This is User:Aristeus01 edit warring against multiple other editors and he files a report?! This is WP:BOOMERANG at best.
    For example I've made a single revert at Origin of the Romanians. RF354 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RF354 (talk · contribs), gyalu22 (talk · contribs) and myself are not identical. As far as I can remember, I have reverted some of gyalu22's edits. On the other hand, warring mentality is obviously not alien to Aristeus01: [17], [18]. PoV pushing neither alien to them: they deleted an important part of a sentence with the edit summary "phrasing": [19]. I think this report is only a new phase of edit warring, because I drew their attention to the consequences of WP:3RR ([20]). Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we speak of examples:
    1. Romanian language: Difference between revisions - [language&diff=1121086976&oldid=1121074536|Wikipedia]
    2. History of the Romanian language revisions- [[21]][[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]]
    3. Origin of Romanians - [[26]] [[27]] [[28]]
    these are all your recent reverts of my editing. Reverts, not consensus following discussion. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are diffs here of Borsoka's edits that are a week old. You also reverted others recently without reaching concensus. [29] and [30] are examples from today.
    BTW, I still don't understand why did you report me. RF354 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because others also don't agree with you they aren't working together. You see that I haven't reverted your edit on Origin of the Romanians, but made a talk section to discuss the matter before doing anything on the article. Borsoka and RF354 reverted your edit, it's their job to argue if they violated policies or not.
    I also made a talk section in History of the Romanian language in which these users didn't intervene, so how did we support each other? I see you had/have another debate there with Borsoka, but it's about a different topic and I didn't intervene there.
    So how am I edit warring, when both the talk sections you linked were started by me in order to prevent edit war, and only in one of the two of these participated two of the three users you accuse of edit warring? Gyalu22 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed similar things by Aristeus01. This was very strange edit that is why I opened a talk section: Talk:History of the Romanian language#Lead, what is the evidence that the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken 2000 years long in Pannonia (today's Hungary), in Dacia (Transylvania)?, the same thing was also presented in another Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanian_language&diff=1119679608&oldid=1118848395 I also opened a new talk section in an another article when Aristeus01 reverted academic sources and named a full library as "unreliabe POV source" while he restored strange 170 years old not modern academic source (1850) that talked about 500 years ago (1300), it seems this was not "unreliabe" for him: Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)#History of Transylvania modern academic source OrionNimrod (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no violation by any of the reported user at either article. Aristeus01 is warned for two reasons: First, they should not have filed this report as it reflects worse on them than anyone else. Apparently, Aristeus01 disagrees with multiple editors and fights to keep their version in different articles, including filing this baseless report. Second, Aristeus should not insist on their version if other editors disagree; they need to resolve the dispute through discussion. If the consensus is against them, then they should stop reverting the other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apparently, Aristeus01 disagrees with multiple editors and fights to keep their version in different articles" - not "multiple" but certain, and not just different articles but on topic of Romanian language. I have obviously collaborated with other editors, even the ones named here when possible.
      "If the consensus is against them, then they should stop reverting the other users" - yes, that is exactly what I did. Consensus has not been reached, I stopped reverting, and I always partake in discussions. It is beginning to be obvious to me that the number of opinions trumps the quality of arguments while it was my understanding Wiki should not work this way, and this is why I filled this report. Perhaps I do not understand the rules and I do deserve a warning if that is the case. It just does not seem right when having three people shouting against one to blame the isolated one for shouting, and having someone else telling the isolated person to shut up, well... Aristeus01 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your quality of argument isn't the best in Talk:Origin of the Romanians#"General view" which is the only case where the number of opinions is more than two. You are talking about the stages of the development of the Daco-Romanian language when the article is about ethnogenesis. You are replacing one third of the lead with irrelevant text and accusing me of this slyness for summarizing my opinion about it in three points and asking you to give your thoughts on should change be made. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not my wording or Pov, it is the exact phrasing used in the cited sources. The lead starts with presenting where the language formed therefore should include the text. It is not slyness or maliciousness I'm escalating, it is edit waring be it in good-faith or bad-faith. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The lead says that the Romanian language formed north of the Jirecek line, that's already enough and there's no need to overwrite text summarizing the three theories, especially not with that "general view" stuff for the reasons I pointed out in the talk section. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.116.45.26 reported by User:StrangeApparition2011 (Result: )

    Page: Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


    User being reported: 66.116.45.26 (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. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1121117180

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1117272097

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1115906102

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Vista#Linus_Tech_Tips_Review_Of_Vista_Isn't_An_%22Advertisement%22

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] I have no way to contact this user. But I created a talk section on the talk page, and they didn't respond.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.116.45.26

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Vista#Linus_Tech_Tips_Review_Of_Vista_Isn't_An_%22Advertisement%22

    Comments:

    I have no way to contact this user, as they don't appear to be verified. But this is probably 6 or 7 times that I've edit-warred with them over a section on the Windows Vista page. They keep removing my contribution, calling it an "advertisement". it's not an advertisement. I included their credentials, as that's how you're supposed to identify that the opinion and coverage comes from a respected media figure. They won't stop removing the content, but also have NOT responded to my thread on the tech page, even after trying to tag them. They just remove it with no discussion.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1121120061"