Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Line 289: Line 289:

Dear Admins, I suspect that this is the same user that was blocked here a few days ago and is now creating different sockpuppets (including [[User:~2026-48327-7]]) and disrupting Wikipedia again. Further Info: [[Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/3RRArchive503#c-PhilKnight-20260119145200-Fightdisinformation2026-20260119132100]] Can you please check it again? He is also engaging in [[WP:CANVASS]] again.

== [[User:Northern Pirozhki]] reported by [[User:ThomasO1989]] (Result: ) ==

”’Page:”’ {{pagelinks|Papers, Please}} <br />

Line 310: Line 310:

<u>”’Comments:”'</u> <br />

:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. Long term edit warring — inserting the same material six times over ten days, no attempt to find consensus. The material being added may violate [[WP:NFCC]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 04:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC) to 04:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
1. 04:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333865728 by Trailblazer101 (talk) and I explained mine there is no need for the change based on the fact they have released for the three shorts try looking it up yourself”
2. 04:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333865728 by Trailblazer101 (talk) and I explained mine there is no need for the change based on the fact they have released for the three shorts try looking it up yourself”
3. 04:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333865728 by Trailblazer101 (talk) and I explained mine there is no need for the change based on the fact they have released for the three shorts try looking it up yourself”
04:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333865245 by Trailblazer101 (talk) why though the three shorts have been released. I see no need for the vandalism”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “General note: Not assuming good faith.”
04:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Caution: Unconstructive editing on DC Universe (franchise).”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A relatively new account that has been antagonistic and accusatory towards myself and other editors, often accusing others of being “edit warriors” and committing vandalism when they are constantly reverting and not engaging in civil, collaborative discussions. Most certainly WP:NOTHERE and not hearing others to prove a point, whatever it may be. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and apparently when I warned them of their disruptive editing, they said “Getting rather scared to be on here being I’m being harassed by trailerblazer101 if I had know trying to contribute would reward me with harassment I’d never had joined“. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trailblazer101, you’ve been edit warring yourself. I’m not sure what do you expect administrators to do, block you both for two weeks from the article? Can’t you start a discussion at Talk:DC Universe (franchise), invite Laddyfisher to it and see what happens? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I do not see any value in negotiating with someone who automatically assumes the worst of fellow editors and is clearly not willing to be civil. I have no problem with the page protection, but I am doubtful that any efforts to discuss would yield any behavior from them aside from what has already been displayed. I try to hold civility and collaboration to a higher standard, I suppose. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trailblazer101, your message doesn’t, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is admittedly difficult to assume good faith in some scenarios, like this one. Not everything is black and white, and I find their initial comments indefensible and more bad faith and uncivil than my messages here. There have been a lot of bad apples I’ve encountered lately. I posted a message to them on the talk page, and they said it was good enough, so there’s that, even though I think this whole ordeal was needlessly excessive. It is rather unfortunate that constructive contributions take a backseat to bureaucratic agendas to appease clearly unconstructive editors… but that may just be me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually concur with Trailblazer101 here; while I haven’t interacted with Laddyfisher myself, they had been continuously showing immature behavior when editing articles and taking reverts to their edits rather personally. They’ve kept trying to edit the article for Lilo & Stitch (2025) to change the phrase “The film received mixed reviews from critics” in the lead section to read “The film received mixed to positive reviews from critics”, but Barry Wom were reverting it back to “mixed reviews”, with Barry providing brief explanations about why they did so, such as pointing out Metacritic‘s Metascore determination for the film and saying that “[the term] ‘mixed’ includes both positive and negative [reviews]”. Laddyfisher complains about Barry Wom’s edits with edit summaries such as “Okay you wanna be an edit warrior have it me I’ve got much more important things then dealing with gatekeepers” and “as much as I’m correct and Barry wom is wrong i won’t let them provoke me into ancjdilish [sic] edit war so I’m reverting my own edit”.

Separately, every time someone adds a notice on Laddyfisher’s talk page, they just outright blank the page and complain about the user leaving the notice. Most of these notices have come from Trailblazer, but there has been one notice left by Manticore telling them to not make personal attacks towards other editors as they supposedly did on House of the Dragon; Laddyfisher blanked that notice with the edit summary, “I don’t who you think you are edit warrior [sic] but never talk to me again. Edit warring sickos like you disgust me”. Laddyfisher’s two most recent edits on their talk page (on January 20) have been to add the Retired template on their page twice, with the penultimate edit having the summary “oh well maybe there’s a better environment than this cos damn”. –WPA (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get how unconstructive editors lacking good fairh are essentially given a free pass for their disruptive behavior…. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Trailblazer101. If they hadn’t self-reverted their latest edit to Lilo and Stitch[1], I’d have been reporting them here too. Their edit summaries are antagonistic and unnecessary. There’s also the suspicion that this is a sock of a blocked account. Judging by their contributions, this ain’t their first rodeo. Barry Wom (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: ~2026-44297-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

05:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Thank you for making me waste hours on lost edits due to reverts before I could hit submit after I asked you to stop while I was actively updating the page’s code, which isn’t as easy to copy changes after a version conflict Viktor, while getting a ling to the novel, is also in the source material already cited. It feels needless to link to it multiple times.”
00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334001709 by Sariel Xilo (talk) – Stop reverting this. You keep erasing easily trackable Information that was absent from the page on the subject, and has been in existence for the last 30 years. You also make editing in references difficult when I do find the time and inclination to put them in, since you seem to have a penchant to mindlessly click “revert” while i’m actively editing”
21:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333980805 by Sariel Xilo (talk) Considering the state of the page, removal of missing established media and boxed sets relevant to the topic and providing additional information on the source material does a disservice to the topic.”
21:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC) “Added Tristan Apblanc from Castles Forlorn. Mentioned some of the Darklord changes and updates due to the Grand Conjunction, as well as 5e having changed Adam/Mordenheim/Lamordia, and Added Dr. Mordenheim to Adam’s initial entry since the two are spiritually bound. I’m sorry I don’t have the time and inclination to give everything a proper link, but I tried citing source materials so they are easy to track down if desired”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Three-revert rule on Darklord (Ravenloft).”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Explanation on their talk page

Comments:

I explained on their talk page that they needed to provide sources because otherwise it is OR. One of their edit summaries included “ You also make editing in references difficult when I do find the time and inclination to put them in“. They attempted a 4th edit, tripped the filter which disallowed it and then went to WP:EFFPR. An editor there highlighted the OR & escalation in their edit summaries. While I appreciate that their latest edit attempted to add sources, their source is a fan wiki. I’m at 3RR but otherwise I’d revert it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is being ridiculous and I don’t understand why.

I added in missing information with reference to the published data (Name and Date) in the edit, and intent to come back later in the notes. This may have been misunderstood by the editor, as they reverted the page within seconds of the edit.

I came back later noticed the change and reverted without a note (I forgot this time), so I could work on the code and add edits. In the process, before I could submit them, the Editor again reverted, creating a version conflict and having me lose my code edits.

After this point I started including notes telling them that I was actively in the process of fixing the issues. Including existing Wikipedia links. The editor continued reverting changes and creating version conflicts resulting in lost edits 2 more times while I was actively editing.

They also kept demanding sources for edits that were already sourced (but not properly linked), and those relying on already established sources where the original editor failed to include relevant data.

As for the Fan Wiki, considering this is in regards to a highly mechanical copyrighted source material pulling from multiple sources, I linked to a Wiki that specializes in Ravenloft lore, makes distinctions between Canon, Non-Canon and Rumors, and includes the relevant copyrighted sourcebooks on the page. If this is not allowed, that calls in to question sites like Wookiepedia and even Wikipedia as reasonable reference sources. But I primarily used them because Hasbro/WotC/TSR doesn’t exactly have a catalogue of its source materials and I was paranoid the changes would be lost due to “Post more Citations”, when this information is in the corebooks referenced, and directed to, all over the page. And I don’t want to have Takedowns issued by Hasbro / WotC since this is copyrighted material… and including full HD scans is likely not a legally viable option to publish.

It is also weird that I get singled out for trying to fix an incomplete page when previously accepted edits are “I just checked my old rulebooks for this update”. But my addition of publications to my edit are wholly denied seemingly without being read. ~2026-44297-9 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Semiprotected one month. Wikis are not considered to be reliable sources. See WP:USERG. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel inclined to point out the page in question is effectively a glossary entry of an in-universe word. With an attempt at a comprehensive list of individuals who qualify as such a word.

Added a major source material – an actual boxed set, that I link to, covering an omitted “Dark Lord”.

It also added a character, who isn’t technically a Dark Lord but has the influence and powers of one because of his ties to the Dark Lord in question, They come as a pair. I also provide a proper link to his existence, ties and background of the character, proving their existence in the context I use.

Those are the major edits that are doing a disservice to the page by being removed with everything else.

The Updates section, that apparently is being so heavily problematic is an inclusion to point out that the status of the Dark Lords changes based on Sourcebook being used. So names listed may not be included in past or future updates. I link to the articles on the specific lords, covering these alterations where appropriate, and link to the source book articles.

The Mistipedia entries were changed from original sources to streamline the sourcebook linking where articles on the books within Wikipedia don’t exist. The Grand Conjunction has 6 Modules focused on it, then impacts all future source material in 3rd and 4th editions of D&D, and while previous lost edits from version conflicts had links to RPG.Net and GoodReads for their existence, Mistipedia had all 6 publications referenced in one place to more succinctly hunt them down. It also has the reference books and page numbers from source books for any information they use, Boldly featured in the article.

I normally wouldn’t have included them For a basic intro to glossary definitions and history, as I didn’t think more than the already cited and referenced and sometimes specifically article linked Sourcebook materials, already existing as acceptable before I edited the page, would be necessary, but the editor in question kept demanding more sources beyond the already accepted primary sources that the article was pulling from.

Like, I don’t see page numbers for other edits pulling from the same materials. Likewise I see no reference to how or why Some Darklords may be absent from the various updates over the ~30 year history of Ravenloft before 5the Edition’s version. And I didn’t want to get in to how and why 5th Edition diverted from Classic because it is not relevant to the specialized topic, while accounting for discrepancies *IS* relevant.

I appreciate the acceptance of The Castles Forlorn Edit, but considering all the other entries in the article don’t have the same standard for reference tags, you are holding edits to a higher standard than previous edits, where links were not included. And thanks to this War I did not initiate, it seems I will be unable to go back and add correct links in my time to properly update it.

It also seems wasteful to require a reference to an article about a Reference book existing over the link to the proof of the reference book existing. It feels like having to link to an article about the new edition of like Brittanica, when talking about the Brittanica “G” book.

And I understand the need for good reference and citation, but it is wasteful and redundant to basically have an Ourobouros of cited reference to articles on an already published and accepted primary reference source. /shrug ~2026-44297-9 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-44297-9: I’ve now removed all the unsourced listed Darklords; if you can provide a source, that would be great (just mention it at Talk:Darklord (Ravenloft)#Ravenloft: Realm of Terror Darklords). Similarly, if you have secondary sources on how Darklords have changed edition to edition, that would be useful and you can use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard while the page is protected. But original research should not be included (ie. your analysis/opinion on how 5E Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft changed things). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: ~2026-44989-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

11:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334078976 by Sugar Tax (talk)”
11:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334078780 by Sugar Tax (talk) You are reverting me to put false names and to put the name of the old mayor , do you even look at what you revert or its just ragebait?”
Consecutive edits made from 11:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC) to 11:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
1. 11:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “”
2. 11:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Stop vandalizing the page with your catalan nationalist propaganda, this is the English Wikipedia, stop using fake unofficial names that are only used in the catalan Wikipedia where even Zaragoza is called Saragossa. Torrevieja has only 1 official name and language. Period.”
Consecutive edits made from 11:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC) to 11:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
1. 11:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1333915123 by Qoan (talk)No”
2. 11:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “NOT in Torrevieja (comarca castellanoparlant per official Generalitat Valenciana source) and Torrevieja’s name can’t be translated to any other language. It’s called TORREVIEJA in every single language in the world. Updating the mayor’s name and the political party ruling since 2019, no one has changed this in 7 years…”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Sax, Spain.”
11:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Edit warring on Torrevieja.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

@Sugar Tax: also broke the 3RR in the page Torrevieja :

1st revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torrevieja&oldid=1334078780

2nd revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torrevieja&oldid=1334078976

3rd revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torrevieja&oldid=1334079102

Without even mentioning the fact that this user was just reverting my edits without even reading properly… you can’t throw in random unofficial names in the English Wikipedia and why putting back a stale, old mayor name (2015) when the new mayor is in charge since 2019? —~2026-44989-7 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – The temporary account User:~2026-44989-7 has been blocked indef by User:Black Kite for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: ~2026-45400-4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334114147 by User3749 (talk) This page is an editorial, you UNDO without addressing the issues, use the talk page”
16:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334113758 by User3749 (talk) To remove the proposed deletion prompt you need to explain your reason, I gave mine. Use the talk page”
16:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334111439 by Reywas92 (talk) make your claim in the talk page”
16:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334110908 by Reywas92 (talk) Use the Talk page if you have an issue with the request for deletion”
16:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334110377 by BrandNewSaint (talk) use the Talk page to bring up your points, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent, secondary sources. This page is an editorial”
16:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334109510 by Reywas92 (talk) This wiki page is a clear editorial”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “General note: Unconstructive editing on Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.”
16:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Edit warring on Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated vandalism and reverts by unregistered user. Reywas92^Talk 16:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn’t really say vandalism (per AGF), but this TA was repeatedly reinstating a previously removed PROD template against policy. I have directed the user to discuss the issue on the talk page, I haven’t seen anything since. User3749 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to restore the content they removed (WP:STATUSQUO) using false claims in the edit summary (“missing sources” when they removed many sources, “can’t link to their own website” when many of the sources were in fact independent and that’s allowed anyway) but that would be another revert of mine. The user has commented on the talk page now, but I don’t think engaging would be particularly productive of use my time since they seem to want to just delete the whole article. — Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator note) They have continued to edit war after this thread opened [2] [3]. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting user:Sagrika14 for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring on the Vaishno Devi article. I recently updated the page to include highly reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources from academic publishers, specifically Tracy Pintchman (SUNY Press) and Abha Chauhan (Taylor & Francis), to provide necessary socio-historical context regarding the deity’s evolution from regional folk traditions. However, User:Sagrika14 has repeatedly removed this scholarly content and replaced it with sections based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of primary Puranic texts. The user’s edits incorrectly identify the deity as “Māṇikī” and “Sukṛti,” despite the Garga Samhita using “Sukṛti” as a common noun for “virtuous deeds” and the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā describing “Māṇikī” as a figure within the distinct Akshardham/Swaminarayan tradition rather than the Trikuta shrine. Crucially, the user has carried out these reverts without providing any edit summaries and has refused to engage in the Talk Page discussion I initiated to resolve these issues. This behavior violates WP:NPOV by suppressing academic perspectives, ignores the WP:BRD cycle, and constitutes a failure to verify claims through reliable secondary sources. I request administrative intervention to stop this disruptive removal of sourced material. Here – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaishno_Devi&diff=prev&oldid=1334115895 Darkgloom (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there pls replace the “Origins” section with the “Socio-historical origins” section previously added (supported by Pintchman and Chauhan). Reasoning Is that The current version contains WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It identifies the deity as “Māṇikī” and “Sukṛti” based on primary texts, but “Sukṛti” is a noun in the cited verse and “Māṇikī” belongs to the Akshardham tradition. These identifications are not supported by secondary scholarly sources. Darkgloom (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChatGPT, it seems that you took over Darkgloom‘s message after the words Reasoning Is that. I’d prefer to talk to humans. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just tent to write formally when I’m trying to follow Wikipedia policies. I’ve put a lot of effort into finding academic sources. I was just trying to make the article more accurate. Darkgloom (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And you’re doing that by removing academic sources simply because you aren’t satisfied with them? You initially objected to Maniki, claiming there was no source stating that Manik is another name of Trikuta. When sources were added to address that, you later removed them anyway, raising a completely different, unrelated objection. You also claimed that purana‘S cannot be used as sources because secondary sources are required, yet at the same time, you asked, “Please add a source showing where in the purana this deity is mentioned as Vaishno Devi.”

You argued that Vaishno Devi cannot be equated with Vaishnavi, despite Vaishnavi being clearly listed as her name in the sources provided. Meanwhile, you were willing to use the temple’s official website as a source, yet dismissed puranic references as inappropriate. Studies are based off of scriptures, since when did puranic references become irrelevant? You even removed the goddesses association with the trinity despite it all being sourced with “scholarly” references because they did not satisfy your perception of the deity. Arnold300 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] – They undid the revision of me putting the 3RR warning. They also blanked when I originally gave them a Edit war warning. [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [13]

Comments:
This user made his account relatively new and chose to immediately edit war. I warned them numerous times on their talk page and the page of the article of edit warring, and 3RR, which they chose to ignore. They’ve been reverted by me and another user @Kansas Bear:. They’ve also numerous times accused me of vandalism on their edit summaries and the talk page (after just now going there). Overall, I see this as exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:NOTHERE, as well as WP:NPA mixed in. Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He has also blanked his ANI notice. [14] Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: KuromiBrat04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

23:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334337526 by LordCollaboration (talk)”
23:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334337160 by LordCollaboration (talk)”
22:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334336765 by Loriendrew (talk)”
18:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “There is an apostrophe in the name Sava’. That’s how Leah has it written on her social media accounts”
18:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1334291469 by Denniss (talk)”
17:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Three-revert rule on Leah Jeffries.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User being reported: ~2026-45663-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

04:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
Consecutive edits made from 04:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC) to 04:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
1. 04:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
2. 04:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
02:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
15:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
05:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
14:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “added content”
14:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC) “”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Three-revert rule on Unification Church.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Now they are just blanking parts of the article and creating formatting errors, so might be more a case of vandalism.[15]

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

doesnt agree with uptodate articles and changes them back when the updated one is correct and general vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-48517-8 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This Temp Account is blocked user and long-term pain-in-the-arse Harry the house. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [[16]]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Dear Admins, I suspect that this is the same user that was blocked here a few days ago and is now creating different sockpuppets (including User:~2026-48327-7) and disrupting Wikipedia again. Further Info: Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/3RRArchive503#c-PhilKnight-20260119145200-Fightdisinformation2026-20260119132100 Can you please check it again? He is also engaging in WP:CANVASS again.

Previous version reverted to: Prev

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1333494966

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user requested taking it to the talk page

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

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. Long term edit warring — inserting the same material six times over ten days, no attempt to find consensus. The material being added may violate WP:NFCC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Leave a Comment

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment