Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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:CoptEgypt136 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Carlo Maria Viganò (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CoptEgypt136 (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]

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

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

    Comments:
    CoptEgypt136 changed the lead photograph in the article Carlo Maria Viganò without discussion on the talk page or using an edit summary. I reverted and posted a message on their user page reminding them to use edit summaries, especially when altering or removing someone else's content. They deleted my talk page message without comment and restored their preferred image, again without an edit summary. I reverted once more and posted a formal warning on their talk page. They undid my revert and again restored their preferred image. CoptEgyp136 has a light editing history, but that history contains several warnings for violations of Wikipedia policy. They have removed most of these warnings from their talk page, but they're there if anyone checks the history. A block is urgently necessary in my view. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23, seriously? This user reverted content twice with no edit summary. They haven't yet broken 3RR, but their action was still inappropriate and they have given no indication that they will stop. Display name 99 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. I agree with Bbb23. They were only warned about edit warring after the reverts linked above. I gave an additional warning and mentioned edit summaries specifically.
    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beats doing nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fillionaire reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked from article for a month under CTOPS)

    [edit]

    Page: Tony Dokoupil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Comments:
    User has one more revert containing copyright violations. They continued to add undue material about the subject and violating MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:RECENTISM as well. They were notified about contentious topics and continued to revert, so I'm not sure whether this report is better filed in arbitration enforcement. Apologies if that's the case. KyleJoantalk 03:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User just reverted my edits three times in 22 minutes. Fillionaire (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User (KyleJoan) has spent the last week deleting every attempt to provide neutral information on the Tony Dokoupil controversy. Fillionaire (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, front-page stories from the WSJ, WP, and NYT are not "undue material." Fillionaire (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation of MOS:OVERSECTION as the content comprised two well-sourced paragraphs. User (KyleJoan)'s argument is that the "Controversy" section is not longer than the subject's "Career" section which is irrelevant. User (KyleJoan) has also arbitrarily suggested that I should simultaneously edit the article for CBS News which is also irrelevant. Fillionaire (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one month from the article under CTOPS, which editor was advised of. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.79.110.201 reported by User:FromCzech (Result: Blocked for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Beer in the Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 212.79.110.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 8 August
    2. 9 August
    3. 9 August
    4. 9 August
    5. [6] (now with inappropriate behaviour in Edit summary. Also in the further Edit summary he openly says that he is not interested in the discussion.)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

    Blocked – for a period of one week Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TarnishedPath reported by User:XZealous (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13][14]

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

    Comments:
    There was an edit added and reverted twice by TarnishedPath. I found this to be an unnecessary revert as there was no consensus for the revert on the talk page. I undid the reversions and made a comment on the talk page. After the third revert, I am taking it here. I am not interested in bringing more drama to an already controversial page, but I also see no need for edit warring. I have not made a post here before (and I hope to never have to again), so I may not have formatted this all correctly. Further input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XZealous (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2024 (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. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I did not realize the 3R rule needed 4 reverts. However, I am grateful that this has brought attention to the edit warring on the ICOC page. XZealous (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @XZealous, aside from this not being a WP:3RR violation, you're required to leave a warning on editor's talk prior to creating any reports here to give them a chance to remedy their WP:3RR violation (which this wasn't) by self-reverting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for noting this, I would have also appreciated a notification for the NPOV board you opened up regarding myself and another editor. XZealous (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cordless Larry notified you. In any case a notification isn't required for topics opened on NPOVN. However in future I'll endeavour to do so, if the situation arises. TarnishedPathtalk 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so." on the top of the NPOV Notice Board page and assumed it meant I needed to be notified. XZealous (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific editors weren't mentioned. In any case I'll endeavour to do so in future. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:243:1A00:4510:96E:83E1:3331:3B57 reported by User:Vipz (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:243:1A00:4510:96E:83E1:3331:3B57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1250009047

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1250029087
    2. Special:Diff/1250126066
    3. Special:Diff/1250129964
    4. Special:Diff/1250168415
    5. Special:Diff/1250357928
    6. Special:Diff/1250361291



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1250245087

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1250365003

    Comments:
    Blocked – for a period of one week The /64. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:7945:3AF3:B209:4C04 reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: /64 blocked 36 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:7945:3AF3:B209:4C04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "AUTOMATED CONTROL ON YOUR PART !!! SHAMEFUL !!!"
    2. 03:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "Provide a REASON when undoing people's work!"
    3. 05:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Hey, twinkle guy, I think it is!"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: German IP user has sporadically been reverting to their preferred version of the lead since June 2022. In the last day, however, they took to edit warring, which began with this edit made by a different German-based IP. I've explained to them in the custom message appended to the warning that their choice of lead contains original research and subjective language. In the same message, I also invited them to discuss the problem on the article talk page, as well as seek help from WP:TEAHOUSE if needed. However, they either did not read my messages or chose to ignore them. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I also requested page protection earlier due to IP-hopping and false claims of vandalism. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Laurent Jack reported by User:Zendrago X (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Strength in legislative assemblies */Now i have updated the total seats composition of The parities of I.N.D.I. Alliance. I have taken the data from the updated wikipedia article of each legislative assembly."
      2. 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 12:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated."
      2. 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Strength in legislative assemblies */Updated"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated the State legislative assembly seats."
      2. 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC) ""
      3. 10:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) ""
      4. 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "I.N.D.I.A have 236 Mp In loksabha. So i updated the numbers according to the loksabha website."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
    2. 13:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

    1. 13:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Zendrago X "/* Note */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Continually reverting edits back to their preferred version. The number of MLAs and MPs is already provided on the page, but the user is changing it to random numbers to make it look less accurate. Since the state-wise data is already given on page for every party, there’s discussion needed on where they’re adding it. Even after replying them on their talk page, they did not respond and restored different random number, their every edit has random number of seats in state seats count which clearly shows vandalism. ZDX (User) | (Contact) 12:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A0A:EF40:2A0:A901:5061:6C04:E201:E044 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Already blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Haggis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A0A:EF40:2A0:A901:5061:6C04:E201:E044 (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:

    Return to warring, against consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: /64 range blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page:

    User being reported: 2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 (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
    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned with this diff that states:

    Please stop your disruptive editing.

    If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Theranos, you may be blocked from editing. You added unrelated & material unverified by a reliable source.

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

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

    Comments:

    FYI
     – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6:_WP:BLP_&_MOS:MOS_violations_&_removing_cited_material_&_citations_without_explanation

    This editor has been constantly manually reverting edits that violate WP:BLP, posting uncited material, removing material without explanation that is cited along with the citations, & violating the Manual of style. Peaceray (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deedman22993 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Curry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Deedman22993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 05:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Even if my account gets blocked this will be still reverted"
    3. 05:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Never gonna stop"
    4. 05:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "What do you mean sock? Look at this article how ruined it is"
    5. 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Previous version of the article was better"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Basically begging to be blocked (note one of the edit summaries). Originally I reverted due to the concern it was a sock (still unsure on this, but I believe it is), but then they kept going. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LilianaUwU: in an attempt at AGF I have asked for constructive feedback on the talk page, but I'm not confident. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was difficult to assume good faith when their first edit summary went along the lines of "nah it was better before". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matza Pizza reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: Tony Dokoupil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Matza Pizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:
    Adding undue material to a contentious BLP, with generally unreliable and/or biased sources (alongside some reliable ones that don't support their proposed material). Their edit summaries and this message clearly indicate inappropriate involvement of editorial bias. It looks like they also want to add positive PR into the article. KyleJoantalk 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor who reported me has edit-warred with no less than five editors on this article in the last 48 hours or so. This editor continues to edit this article in a highly biased way, clearly violating BLP rules, reverting the numerous editors who sought to insert balance. Editor also made baseless claims against me - both above and on the page itself - of trying to "add positive PR", after I added some human-interest nugget which I discovered while bolstering sources in response to her attempting to negate the ones which were already in place, and then falsely suggested that I have a WP:COI issue. (I don't know Dikoupil from apples). This editor has removed NPOV content placed by multiple editors trying to properly balance both the page and the specific issue at hand, instead presenting a highly misleading, highly biased, one-sided, BLP-violating article bordering on slanderous.
    Matza Pizza (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the fourth revert listed, you edited a citation by changing a word in a direct quote. Here, you complain about "the young, internal woke mob". I don't think you're in a position to reference BLP or NPOV. KyleJoantalk 10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeff6741 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Human rights in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jeff6741 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]



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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

    Comments:
    User continues to insist on adding this material despite discussion on talk page highlighting WP:V and WP:NPOV problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All the material I added is verifiable and as neutral as possible, and many words are from the source. Jeff6741 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See User_talk:Jeff6741#3RR,_again. Polygnotus (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hope3606 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: List of professional wrestling attendance records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Hope3606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250483569 by HHH Pedrigree (talk)"
    3. 17:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250480039 by HHH Pedrigree (talk)"
    4. 16:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of professional wrestling attendance records."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Jewishadvocacy911 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Ilana Glazer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Jewishadvocacy911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 13:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 12:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Ilana Glazer."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Violation of ARBPIA and BLP continue on user's talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loodog reported by User:Geogene (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Pit bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Loodog (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]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

    Comments:

    This is a selective reading of events. My friend Geogene here left one comment on the article's talk page, which I then replied to, making new suggestions and soliciting for feedback, but never received another reply. Geogene's only further actions were to revert my subsequent changes which incorporated their concerns expressed on the talk page. My last edit, reinstating my last revised edition, again entreated Geogene to bring it to the talk page and I warned Geogene to be mindful of WP:3RR. Notably, somehow my warning to Geogene is being cited above as Geogene's warning to me. Geogene did not issue any such warning.

    Now, given that my second edit was a completely different change to my first, based on Geogene's concerns, I count only 2 reversions on my part, while for Geogene, I count 1, 2, 3 reversions, none of which were iterative or different, and were literally just reversions of anything I added, no matter what it was, while (seemingly) refusing any further discussion on the article's talk page. Louiedog (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I linked to Louiedog's 3RR warning because it proves they have some level of awareness of edit warring policy. Continuing to reinstate edits that I have already opposed both in edit summary and on the talk page on grounds of primary, and undue, is edit warring. Including new changes that I'm also opposed to (moving controversy from the lead to the body) at the same time as re-adding the disputed content does not mean it's not edit warring. Demanding that I return to the talk page to repeat previously stated objections before re-reverting the disputed additions does not justify edit warring. It is just possible that Louiedog does not understand the objections I made, but that doesn't justify continuing to re-add the disputed content. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1250648136"