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

Line 185: Line 185:

*{{AN3|pb|2 weeks}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 08:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

== [[User:Binksternet]] reported by [[User:Sackkid]] (Result: ) ==

Line 219: Line 219:

:The most productive part of the entire encounter is the content aspects of the discussion on the article’s talk page. Everything else is secondary distraction.

:Please keep [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BURDEN]] in mind, both of which prohibit you from restoring the disputed content before the discussion has come to a conclusion. You may later (not exactly now but when the discussion starts running in circles) need a [[WP:3O|third opinion]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

*{{AN3|s}}. People are discussing on the article’s talk page. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

== [[User:Muronoh]] reported by [[User:Sugar Tax]] (Result: ) ==

User being reported: Fmjar9k (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 13:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC) to 13:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
1. 13:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “/* Short film */Corrected screen credit”
2. 13:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “I removed the short film, because it is not ParaNorman ( 2012) and I am protecting the integrity and reputation of the original artists who worked on ParaNorman.”
01:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “/* Short film */ removed causing online deception, and confusion. Protecting the integrity and reputation of the original artists who worked on ParaNorman”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Three-revert rule on ParaNorman.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

12:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “/* Edit war re: short film */ new topic”

Comments:

SPA trying to right great wrongs. Three reverts in twenty minutes, plus one two on the 6th (e.g., [1]) and two on the 4th (e.g., [2]) Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It continues [3]. Oblivy (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: Thegreatofalltimes (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 00:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC) to 00:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
1. 00:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “Updated article to reflect that Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan, with reliable sources added.”
2. 00:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “Updated article to reflect that Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan, with reliable sources added.”
23:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Added reliable sources confirming Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan.”
23:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Added reliable sources confirming Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan.”
23:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Added reliable sources confirming Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan.”
23:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Added reliable sources confirming Makroudh is a traditional Tunisian pastry from Kairouan.”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Edit warring on Makroudh.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

02:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “This is Wikipedia, unreliable sources such as fan-wikis aren’t accepted. What is true is decided from the company of DC Comics itself, what the company still holds, not writers or readers or fans, not anyone else.”
02:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “Reverting”
01:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “Reverting, in Wikipedia, unreliable sources aren’t accepted”
00:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC) “/* 21st century */ reverting”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This literally doesn’t make sense at all. You are literally reporting me when all I do is preserve the article based on accuracy from what DC Comics stated, the company itself. I am reverting to the accurate version of the article. I edited again and again to prevent possible vandalism by changes that are NOT based on reliable sources, the opposite of what DC Comics provides. But somehow, some editors keep trying to change it, again. Also, some other editors even help me by reverting the edit of the article, protect the article as I do. And somehow, suddenly, I am reported? This does not make sense; this can be seen as slander. I have the right to defend myself here. @Red Shogun412 @Trailblazer101 AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then please feel free to legitimately address our concerns. I provided you the insight and encouragement to do so at the article’s talk page, but honestly, that is something that you probably should have already done when you first experienced other editors reverting your preferred changes before. All editors will try to do the right thing, so there is no need to WP:Right great wrongs, especially on a comic book character article. However, the issue also isn’t one about vandalism, as you keep claiming it is, but rather this is an issue about a persistent WP:Content dispute between yourself and multiple other editors that you occasionally encounter. If you truly want to legitimately defend yourself, then this is exactly the right place to do so. Therefore, going forward, I would advise you to read the page on Content disputes that I have linked here (and at your talk page) and collaboratively engage in discourse about the content in question with other editors rather than continually engaging in disruptive revert edits, which does appear to be WP:Edit warring behavior, which we’d all like to be put past. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the article, I already explained it, of what I did, I wrote a kind of long note. If you demand me to understand the other editors’ explanations. Then to be fair, I hope the same for other editors to understand my explanation. Unverified changes are not accepted in wikipedia. That’s it. If those editors want to talk, they can go visit my talk page, and discuss there. I feel comfortable there rather than in the character’s talk page, personally. So, rather than having a war of edits. Please stop ruining the article with something that’s not even verified and reliable. I am protecting the article, that’s all my intention was. Also, reporting me all of sudden like this without understanding the context of that person, it can be seen as slander. As that person, I have to stand for myself AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue about the article content. While you may feel that the version you are restoring is “accurate”, some editors raised concerns and disagree, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon yourself to justify and validate your claims, NOT to repeatedly revert others you disagree with because of your claims of “accuracy” according to a company. You are required to discuss any content dispute and have thus far failed to engage with your fellow editors. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To put it plainly, you violated the three-revert rule by reverting four times within 24 hours. That is why I filed this report. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still it can be seen as slander for me, reporting me without understanding the context. Also, I just realized that I edited it 4th time, sorry for that. But still, you reported me hastily. And I can stand up for myself here. Also, if those editors want to talk, they are welcomed on my talk page. But now, they don’t even try to communicate with me, I feel comfortable talking in my talk page rather than on article’s talk page. One last thing, of course, what canon is decided by the company, it’s valid, they are the creator of the world of DC Comics and the one who owns the character. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) AmazonianGoddess (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I did not have all the facts upfront when I filed this report. However, this is not slander. This is a natural part of the Wikipedia process. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s totally acceptable. It would just help if we all were working with the same set of information, which we, and others, clearly we’re not. I’d say that if your edits are compliant with DC’s New Encyclopedia that addresses the evolving origin of Wonder Woman, which states (“If nothing else, Diana Thymeria stands for truth. However, she said she had been living as the daughter of Zeus and was the Amazon Queen Themyscira. However, she was known to protect her from the wrath of Zeus’ wife Hera, his legitimate children. This gave rise to the legend that Queen Hippolyta had adopted Diana from clay.”), then I would support you doing so. However, the lack of communication and information sharing throughout this whole process has been regrettable and I believe we all can learn from it in not being too hasty to reaction, whether it be in reporting or reverting. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I would like to formally withdraw my report. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101 Despite you reported me hastily before, I want you to know that I already forgave your mistake here. I forgive you. I hope this can be a lesson for all of us. So, the wikipedians next time can have a good communication, because Wikipedia is built by us, a community, after all. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It’s all good. Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an WP:SPA attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and unwilling to listen to fellow editors, based on their response to a warning from @Red Shogun412 at their talk page. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also like to add that their contributions from the past month also seem to follow a similar pattern if behavior. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

did neither of you check to see if the edits were actually correct? Red Shotgun412, you asked where the unreliable source was when it’s clearly in the edit summary by a TA. I don’t see any discuss on the talk page or anything EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see any unreliable source in the actual edit difference of there’s that I reverted. I know there are a few competing edits in the past few hours. If one particular editor cited the DC Database as their source in the edit summary, but didn’t actually implement that source as a citation, I didn’t see that. But, I feel that the issue can be resolved by actually looking for current reliable sources to identify which side of the content dispute they support, as I’ve seen multiple editors arrive at different independent conclusions on this matter. I won’t be able to right now, but I would like to see reliable sources for the content in question beyond a fan wiki. That’s why I wish this could have been held at a talk page discussion like I attempted earlier, but then this got filed and now we’re here. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the TA was referring to the DC Fandom wiki for their claims in this revision, but it is more complicated than that. I did some digging into this and from what it appears, who Wonder Woman’s father is has been a point of contention for a long while now, with different authors providing their own interpretations. According to the following sources (Bleeding Cool Jan. 2026), [https://www.slashfilm.com/1777494/wonder-woman-father-dc-comics-zeus-explained/ SlashFilm (Feb. 2025), and Screen Rant Feb. 2024), it has varied between her being formed from clay or her being the daughter of Zeus and an Amazonian/Olympian Goddess. There appears to be no clear version that DC has stuck to, so stating either as more true than the other is misleading. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has all just been a misunderstanding blown out of proportion, though it does not help that the infobox is confusing by listing three separate species of “Amazon”, “Olympian God”, and “Olympian-Amazonian demigoddess (since 2011)”. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this be moved to the talk page. @AmazonianGoddess please continue the discussion there EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to what DC Comics stated in the principle of Wonder Woman, since every fictional characters have their own guideline, including Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is indeed Olympian and Amazon. She is the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta. DC Comics carried it from The New 52 over into Rebirth, and go on. She is an Olympian God as the child of Zeus (half-blood) and by the way, she has been ascended to FULL godhood. Followed in general comics. It’s the principle from DC Comics for Wonder Woman, followed multiple times in comics. Of course, a writer follows what the editorials say. Writers DON’T have the authority, editorial A.K.A the company does, they are the final decider.

1. Wonder Woman volume 4, from The New 52

2. Wonder Woman, volume 1, 2019, Rebirth

Et cetera.

Also, can we continue the discussion in my talk page then? No need to do it on Wonder Woman’s talkpage. I feel comfortable there, can we? AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought it there. You should bring this there, too. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP withdrew their complaint. Discussion should move to the article’s talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put the page on PC for the next month, per a request at RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I want to tell that the discussion has ended. We already cool now. It was all just a misunderstanding, a report that was TOO HASTY. We just lacked of communication, lacked of knowing the context so that’s why I was reported hastily. And I already forgave user Trailblazer’s mistake for reporting me hastily. I already forgive the person. So it’s okay. So we all cool now. Thank you. I think we can learn from this. AmazonianGoddesAmazonianGoddess (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9], [10], [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Main reliable sources (such as CTBUH‘s Skyscraper Center and SkyscraperPage; per WP:SKY) state Senna Tower‘s status is “proposed”, but the user insists on changing it to “under construction” without providing a source stating that.

The user has been already reported and blocked for doing disruptive editing and edit warring, he is absolutely aware; I warned three times in the revisions about the 3RR and edit warring, I even said “Again, PLEASE do not revert and use the talk page per WP:EW/WP:3RR.”, so I didn’t find necessary to warn him on his user page. Basically the user adds unsourced content (WP:DE and maybe WP:OR), ignores any warnings (he has already done so many times), and does edit warring despite warnings. IDontDoDoja (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IDontDoDoja, edit warring while telling others not to is … creative.

Why is there no discussion at Talk:Senna Tower and would you mind starting one? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since this page has not been edited in two days, any sanctions now would not accomplish much, per WP:BLOCKP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to edit it again, since it would violate WP:4RR, I will try to get consensus again, and if necessary, report again. IDontDoDoja (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I considered not to do so, but now with administrators knowing this, I absolutely would like to discuss it. Sadly, to justify his (literally) disruptive editing he has repeated the same WP:OTHERCONTENT fallacy several times instead of reading my edits. I asked him to start the talk page thrice since he is the one who wants to change significantly the article; I only reverted it with additional sources. By the way, I have watched his user page and he has received several reports, warnings and attempts to get consensus, but he ignores the talk pages. Since somehow my request was declined, I will try to discuss, and, if necessary, report again. Thank you. IDontDoDoja (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, IDontDoDoja. We’ll see if Whathever2 actually refuses to discuss at Talk:Senna Tower. The essay WP:DISCFAIL may be helpful for the next steps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: Vector legacy (2010) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

20:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “not gonna waste my time on this after this, but I thought this was about JC, not the CST; how many sources are needed to verify that he said this”
19:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “have to make do without the quote then”
19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “if you look at the 2024 RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#RFC_Jewish_Chronicle), it says there is “no consensus that JC should be considered generally unreliable on topics unrelated to PIA”; i don’t know how “related” holocaust denial is to I/P, but the CST source is also included, and the JC source simply supplies the quote”
19:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “per WP:RSP, the jewish chronicle was not deprecated fully, it was deprecated regarding israel/palestine”

n.b. first diff is a revert of this earlier edit, as alluded to in the ES

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “/* February 2026 */ new section”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I did not edit war. I did not even break the 3RR. I in fact did what you said and got rid of the Jewish Chronicle source and relied on another one. You rejected that other source as well for reasons you did not explain. This is a spurious waste of time. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The four reverts are above. You are edit warring material into a BLP without consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit is not a revert, it is me addressing your concern. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted the same material, with the same wording and the same source. One quote was not restored. A partial revert is a revert. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same source. I got rid of the source you found problematic. I did exactly as you said. You still reverted for reasons you have yet to explain. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true though, is it. I gave the reason in this edit. Your claims are not an excuse for edit warring poorly-sourced material into a BLP. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain why the source is insufficient. What exactly is wrong with it? Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Per this edit summary of VL’s, this seems unlikely to continue (although it still should not have gone this far, and the above discussion belongs on the talk page. Once again, it should not take a report here to trigger discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening as user is still reverting, even after this discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

diff
diff
diff (partial revert)
diff (partial revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unnecessary as the user has warned many other users about edit warring, so they are very familiar.

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

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

Comments:
Good evening. I recently made a major edit on the article We Are Family (album) and provided reliable sources to support each claim on the page. Less than hour after the edit is made, my edits were reverted by User:Binksternet and then I received an accusation on my talk page. They accused me of “edits generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages” which is completely false. After I debunk that accusation, I added my edits back to the page and again they were reverted. Information including the album’s chart achievements, Grammy nomination, promotion campaign, tour, etc. were all erased by User:Binksternet. In their revision edit summaries, they referred to my edits as “AI-written trash” and “AI hallucination” which is very insulting to me because I spent a lot of time going through Billboard magazine articles, online newspapers, etc. and gathering this information. What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, WP:DONTBITE?

Then the user removed the information I had sourced in the Sister Sledge article. One of the things removed was that the group was managed by their mother, which is supported in Ebony Magazine source that I provided. I don’t know if this user enjoys being disruptive and/or slanderous but looking at User:Binksternet talk page and block history, it seems that user has a history of edit warring. They refuse to respond back to the comment that they left on my talk page, they refuse to answer the article’s talk page, and they still have not justified removing supported information from the Sister Sledge article page. Sackkid (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 3RR violation, because the fourth diff is just copyediting directly following the third diff, a partial revert.

Sackkid’s addition brought wrong information to the page. They wrote that Sister Sledge is a “girl group” rather than a vocal group.

Sackkid wrote that the group was, “Dissatisfied with their 1977 studio album Together” which is unsupported by any sources.

Sackkid also wrote that the Sister Slege album African Eyes was jazz fusion, another completely unsupported idea.

I accused Sackkid of using AI tools resulting in hallucinations, but Sackkid denies such tools. If that’s true, Sackkid is misrepresenting the sources, purposely putting wrong information into the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might be stating the obvious as your first statement is correct and perhaps intentionally just addressing this specific concern. But: Edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sackkid, thank you very much for starting a discussion about this at Talk:We Are Family (album) § February 6, 2026. Assuming that the AI claims are incorrect, I understand that they are upsetting but please ignore that aspect for now. Your position will be best if you focus on content in that discussion despite any biting, attacks or whatnot. Be strong and ignore such distractions if possible; take them to WP:ANI if you absolutely have to but don’t expect much from that approach.

The most productive part of the entire encounter is the content aspects of the discussion on the article’s talk page. Everything else is secondary distraction.

Please keep WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in mind, both of which prohibit you from restoring the disputed content before the discussion has come to a conclusion. You may later (not exactly now but when the discussion starts running in circles) need a third opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: Muronoh (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 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC) to 09:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
1. 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed nonsensical information mixed with hatred and unfounded claims.”
2. 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed nonsensical information mixed with hatred and unfounded claims.”
3. 09:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed nonsensical information mixed with hatred and unfounded claims.”
09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed nonsensical information mixed with hatred and unfounded claims.”
09:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed unverified information mixed with falsification. Very unfounded claims.”
09:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Removed unverified information mixed with falsification. Very unfounded claims.”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Caution: Removal of content, blanking on William Ruto.”
09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Removal of content, blanking on William Ruto.”
09:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Three-revert rule on William Ruto.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [22]

Comments:

While there hasn’t been a technical violation of the 3RR, despite a previous 48 hour block, user continues to edit without regard for Wiki policy or guidelines, and the BRD process and does not communicate via talk pages or with edit summaries, making dispute resolution impossible. Jahaza (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging involved editors @Melchior2006, @Bernard Lee, @Adakiko, @Medusahead, @Ad Orientem, @Pbritti, and administrator @Ponyo. Jahaza (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for one week for disruptive editing by @Ad Orientem (who I didn’t realize above was an admin.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahaza (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: ~2026-87011-4 (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 18:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) to 19:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
1. 18:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “add ref”
2. 19:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “add link source ref and his archives”
10:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1337415127 by StephenMacky1 (talk)”
04:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1337370659 by StephenMacky1 (talk) rv vandalism removal of sourced content”
23:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “restored source ref”
20:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC) “Undid revision 1336593238 by Martynpatrick (talk)”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC) “Warning: Edit warring on Jamie Shea.”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent BLP violations, edit warring and disruption by anon. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply