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 11 west (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 4 July 2019 (→‎User: reported by User:11 west (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:119.94.250.185 reported by User:HappyINC (Result: Declined)

    Page: Frederator Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 119.94.250.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC) "草泥马"
    2. 02:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC) "Eat shit."
    3. 03:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 903961661 by HappyINC (talk)"
    4. 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904004925 by HappyINC (talk)"
    5. 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "the game"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    User keeps removing the parameter in the production section that says that they made Inanimate Insanity on YouTube, and it’s true. I keep telling them to stop but they continue. Also please note that user in second revert told me to “eat shit” and that counted as a personal attack. HappyINC (Let’s chat!) 15:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring has nothing to do with who is right. BTW, you never warned the IP about edit warring as required. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mhhossein reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )

    Page: Death of Neda Agha-Soltan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:

    On 19 june 2019, Mhhossein added a POV tag to the above article. I reverted him and added sources to the article. Since then, the reported editor is actively edit warring against at least 3 editors : HistoryofIran, a Pakistani IP and me (but he did not break the 3RR since he's an experienced user). The reported user is trying to add unreliable sources from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the article by the mean of edit-warring and without any consensus while several editors, including LouisAragon, HistoryofIran and me told him on the article's talk page that his sources are not reliable and while he has already been strongly warned by an admin to desist from such disruptive behaviors. There is no evidence that the reported editor is willing to listen to the admin who warned him, rather, everything seems to indicate that he intends to keep edit warring in order to discredit a quite well sourced article. Admins' intervention is requested. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This is not the whole story. There's already a 3rd opinion by an experienced admin which the users are ignoring. Also, how the IP suddenly showed up is interesting. --Mhhossein talk 12:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an ongoing debate over the POV of the article however Wikaviani asserts that there should not be a tag showing this. Also "The reported user is trying to add unreliable sources from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the article by the mean of edit-warring" is baseless and Wikaviani should be warned against making false accusations. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin who intervened never gave you a white card for edit-warring against three other editors, he asked to all parties to assume good faith (including you ...) and gave his opinion about the lede. He also disagreed with the inclusion of the film from Hashemi (PRESS TV) that you wanted to include as a "source". Also, for your information, i'm not living in Pakistan, thus the IP you're currently edit warring with is not me. You really need to stop making baseless accusations and battleground comments when you disagree with fellow wikipedians, as another veteran admin asked you less than 4 months ago. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be boomerang here, since although you were told by the admin there are POVs which should be included, you kept on removing the tag by edit warring. --Mhhossein talk 11:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go, now, you're trying to mislead people about what the admin said. Here is his main comment on the article's talk page, the one i suppose, you're referring to, since his only other comment there was that one. Now, could you please point to the part of the admin's comment where he asked you to edit war ? the part where he asked you to add a POV tag to the whole article just because the lead should include the IRI claims of conspiracy (and with extra care since IRI is the only country that supports that so called conspiracy theory) ? The part where he asked you to accuse fellow Wikipedians of sockpuppetry without any serious evidence ? The part where he asked you to act in a WP:BATTLEGROUND way with other users ? Thanks in advance. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Petulant Clerk reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Petulant Clerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904317700 by Shellwood (talk)"
    2. 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "no"
    3. 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "revert potentially libellous edit"
    4. 10:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "revert per WP:BLP, this edit exempt from usual 3-revert rule"
    5. 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "absolutely disgraceful, for shame"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Clearly an account created in order to avoid scrutiny. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ke an and User:Darius Musteikis reported by User:Kyuko (Result: )

    Page: Adolfas Ramanauskas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Darius Musteikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 09:07, 5 May 2019

    Diffs of the users' reverts:

    1. 08:43, 27 June 2019
    2. 15:56, 26 June 2019 "fake news, not supported by the facts"
    3. 02:43, 3 June 2019
    4. 10:14, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1941 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
    5. 00:09, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1940 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
    6. 22:37, 1 June 2019

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

    Comments:

    • Users have repeatedly deleted any mention of the widely-reported controversies surrounding the article's subject. All such mentions used NPOV language, were well-cited, and avoided taking a stance on the controversy. (See diffs of the users' reverts.) Kyuko (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a content dispute, no admin cares how right you think you are. "But my version is better" is not a defense against a charge of edit warring. If you find yourself unable to reach a consensus with the other parties in a content dispute, follow further steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You don't get to win the dispute by being the first to report someone here. By the way, are you also editing the article and talk page while logged out? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaranoFan reported by User:KoopaLoopa (Result: Reporter indeffed)

    Page
    No.6 Collaborations Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MaranoFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904466401 by KoopaLoopa (talk)"
    2. 10:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904462913 by KoopaLoopa (talk) We DID discuss. Multiple users disagree with you which constitutes a consensus. It literally IS a studio album from which all the tracks were recorded in a studio. There’s no such thing as just "album". It is not our fault you’re unfamiliar with basic music terminology. Reporting you to an admin"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) to 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      1. 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "The consensus on the talk page is against you. Don’t try this again unless you want an admin involved for your edit warring."
      2. 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "Dummy edit; that edit summary was directed toward KoopaLoopa, not MarioSoulTruthFan."
    4. 09:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904154196 by KoopaLoopa (talk) There are sources calling it a studio album. Stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss your proposed change. Per WP:BRD, the last stable version called it a "studio album" so that should stay. [11]"
    5. 09:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KoopaLoopa: Don’t cherrypick the one source that uses your preferred wording. Most sources are calling it his next album without using the word "compilation" (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on No.6 Collaborations Project. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 13:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ new section"
    2. 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ replying to the Fans - Marano & MarioSoulTruth (pun intended)"
    3. 15:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ reply"
    4. 04:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */"
    5. 17:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ Replying to MarioSoulTruthFan (using reply-link)"
    6. 17:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ Replying to KoopaLoopa (using reply-link)"
    7. 17:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Studio or compilation? */ add more"
    Comments:

    MaranoFan has been adding "studio" to the introduction of this article repeatedly despite objections from myself and another user on the talk page. They refuse to discuss further after I tried to make a compromise and they keep undoing my edits despite the consensus being against them. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have not been "adding studio" to the album article. I literally created it and it was always listed as a studio album. KoopaLoopa (who joined WP two months ago) randomly showed up and decided to remove it. They were reverted and explained that according to WP:BRD they need to discuss it further before enforcing their bold edit again. The discussion did happen on the talk page and two users (including myself) concluded that it is a studio album. KoopaLoopa continued to edit war anyway and has been removing the "studio" wording which everyone except him has agreed upon. The consensus is against him and he needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This user has been edit warring continuously and removing a wording which no one else has an issue with. A simple look at the article's history reveals that this user has made just as many reverts as me, which really calls for a WP:BOOMERANG on this report. I acted with consensus, this person did not.—NØ 11:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you lying? "two users (including myself) concluded..."? WTF? You're the only user "concluding" that. Mario does not support your argument and it was him who chose not reinstate your edit here. Stop lying and distorting this to make it look like you haven't done anything wrong. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mario literally has weighed in on the talk page and agrees it’s a studio album. You’re the ONLY person taking issue with that basic terminology. He just removes the references in your linked diff, you are the one who removed the "studio" wording, newbie.—NØ 11:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. When Mario chose not to readd your edit, it basically implies he agrees with mine, and thus at that point the page became the neutral version. When you continued to edit war and reverted Mario's edit, you escalated the situation without discussing further. I invited you twice on the talk page for a comment but you did not want to say anything more. That suggests you're happy at ignoring discussion and continuing to keep your preferred version. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, no. Are you even thinking before writing literally any nonsense to skew the situation in your favour? The wording that has always been in the article and no one else took issue with except you is "studio album". Mario has never ever removed that wording from the article, nor has anyone else except you Mr. KoopaLoopa. The discussion on the talk page literally confirms Mario agrees that it’s a "studio album".—NØ 11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • When you create an article with false information and another user removes it, it does not automatically give you the advantage of the "has always been" argument. Mario was clearly referring to the literal aspect not what he actually thinks this project is. You should've stopped edit-warring after he made the edit but you've continued it and now we're here. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Literally what? It is correct information. The album is literally his next studio album and MTV backs that fact. His bio and discography article also list it with his studio album. And yes, everyone totally had the right to revert you when you boldly changed the wording to something else. You not knowing this confirms you haven’t read WP:BRD, please READ what experienced editors tell you to instead of blindly starting an edit war with them.—NØ 11:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, it's not! There are sources calling Subtract his fourth studio album that directly contradict your addition of "studio" to this project which Sheeran himself called a 'compilation album'. I asked a question yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#If reliable sources are simply incorrect about contradicting sources and the editors there suggested we should go with the majority of sources. Here, the only source that describes this project as a studio album is MTV and I have pointed out on the talk page why it is unsuitable. The majority of sources call this just an album so it's what the wording should be and the other editor does not agree with you. You cannot claim you have consensus backing you when there isn't. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually yes, it is! Sources use a variety of terms to refer to musical projects. For example, a song may be referred to as "single", "song", "track" etc. but we always go for "single" as the main wording. Similarly, most sources are not formal enough to call something a "studio album" every time, so they call it just "album" but the convention on WP is always to call them studio albums. I think I would know as someone who has worked on several good articles about albums/EPs!! And consensus is on my side too btw. Any admin who will respond to this report will see [12] and know that, you’re not fooling anyone bro :). You’re the only person who has removed this wording, the only one who has a problem and have made at least five reverts here even though virtually no one agrees with you. WP:BOOMERANG.—NØ 12:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You made five reverts as well and even more before I made my edit so what are you trying to prove? My reverts are justified because I was restoring the neutral version, in which the other editor implied support for my edit, forming a consensus against yours. And don't bro me if you don't know me. KoopaLoopa (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Go. and. read. WP:BRD. The last stable version of the page before the edit warring was [13] which called it a "studio album". The fact that you’re still fighting even though you have no policy backed argument (because you’ve not even read them) really shows that you need a WP:MENTOR. But don’t expect me to help you, I’m done here. I will help people when they ask me for it. You're welcome to keep typing but I’ll suggest kicking the battleground mentality down a notch and actually reading some policies. Apologising in advance to any admins who will have to waste their time reading through this.—NØ 12:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • KoopaLoopa indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexbrn reported by User:Freelion (Result: Freelion blocked and Alexbrn warned)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]
    5. [19]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.or g/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexbrn&type=revision&diff=904268824&oldid=904213888]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]

    Comments:
    This editor is clearly doing a hatchet job on this article. He has cherry picked the worst sounding parts of references to pour scorn on the movement. Whenever I try to balance the article by including more context from those very same references, or other references, he reverts everything I have done. He is wiki-lawyering, pointing out minor errors and linking to various Wikipedia rules that he claims I have broken. He has shown no intention of working collaboratively or being helpful, has not responded constructively to any of my points on the talk page and is not addressing individual changes – he just continually reverts everything that I have done. He is being deliberately obstructive. Freelion (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked Freelion for 72h for edit-warring. They were blocked for 36h in April 2019 for violating 3RR on the same article. Thus, this is simply a resumption of the same conduct. Although Alexbrn has also been edit-warring, they have not violated 3RR and, contrary to Freelion's statements above, they are discussing Freelion's changes reasonably on the Talk page. The picture Freelion paints of Alexbrn's conduct is self-serving and false. Still, Alexbrn is warned that they risk being blocked if they edit-war in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edward Zigma being repported by User:Harshil169 (Result: Malformed )

    Page:- 2019 Delhi Temple attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:- Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Different attempts to solve the conflicts on the page

    1. [25]

    Comments:

    This editor is included in the edit war with me on the page I mentioned. He is removing the reports and websites which include the word Muslims. Although, he doesn't site any type of wikipedia policy for justification. Kindly look at his activities and take appropriate action on him.

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:45.50.57.253 reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: )

    Page: Far-right politics in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 45.50.57.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&type=revision&diff=904187269&oldid=903303627
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=904188401
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904243278
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904440198
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=904440319
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904440319

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:I've been dealing with this editor on a number of pages, as seen in contributions and user talk, they have a significant pattern of disruptive editing, they ignore repeated requests to stop disruptive editing Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:8803:2A00:9A00:A86E:3E75:DC3:B01B reported by User:Wikiacc (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

    Page
    List of Presidents of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2600:8803:2A00:9A00:A86E:3E75:DC3:B01B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904703436 by LightandDark2000 (talk)"
    2. 23:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904697517 by Wikiacc (talk)"
    3. 21:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904689548 by Wikiacc (talk)"
    4. 20:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904684457 by MJL (talk)"
    5. 20:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904680002 by MJL (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
    2. 22:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Presidents of Venezuela. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 22:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Continued removal of Guaido */ new section"
    Comments:

    IP removed Guaido from the list; this was discussed previously (see talk and protection log). Rather than engaging in discussion, has continued to revert: five reverts in the past five hours. Requesting a temporary block under 3RR. Wikiacc () 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw that User:LightandDark2000 reported the same behavior at WP:AIV. Wikiacc () 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 1 week ST47 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ajñavidya reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: 31 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]
    5. [34]
    6. [35]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] (another user)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

    Comments:

    User has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing on several pages. His views have not been supported by others on the talk page, and he has been reinserting the same information again today now seven times. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked ST47 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit clash) I regard Ajñavidya's edits as highly tendentious with a very obvious political POV. They are very unwilling to drop their preferred sticks. I have just had to give them warnings for blanking valid content which, in addition to being wrong it itself, was also a 3RR violation. I do feel that this is bordering on a WP:NOTHERE situation. They just got a short block (see above) as I was typing this comment. If this works then that is fair enough but I would not be at all surprised to see us back here in a few days. If so, the question will be whether to attempt a topic ban or just to show them the door. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alizabeth blon reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alizabeth blon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Pregnancy and children */"
    4. 02:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC) ""
    5. and this one as well. And maybe others
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    warned about edit warring here MPS1992 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) See also WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked ST47 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring :

    [[User:<jtfolden>]] reported by User:11 west (Result: )

    Page: Template:Brutalist architecture User being reported: Template:Jtfolden

    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

    Comments:

    The user jtfolden is reverting wholesale all the detailed and well documented changes I have made without due consultation, and despite me providing clearly referenced original sources. I maintain that despite I am being the only user quoting widely acclaimed primary sources, user jtfolden has been making changes and assumptions based on secondary sources and his personal agenda, while rejecting mine. I can prove this with a well documented series of factual errors and misquotations, including the changing of dates and the ommission of key words to demonstrate arbitrary facts that is part of his personal agenda, while in the meantime he is ignoring or diminishing other viewpoints on the subject 11 west (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=904720682"