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:Capitals00 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Declined)[edit]

    Page: Stateless nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Capitals00 (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]
    7. [7]
    8. [8]
    9. [9]
    10. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

    Comments:

    This is not a 3RR violation report; this is a report of a user's protracted edit warring in one article, Stateless nation, spannig a longer period. Their edit warring in other articles was a subject of several noticeboard discussions elsewhere, and user has been made aware of our edit warring policies multiple times in the course of these (see their Talk page history as they routinely remove warnings).

    Here in Stateless nation, the user has been repeatedly censoring any mention of Tamils as a stateless nation. All their edits were consistently reverted by multiple independent editors.

    Given that the Tamils have been fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka, this can only be seen as an unambiguous POV-pushing, and so one wonders whether this disruption is not a substantial breach of the user's topic ban on India–Pakistan conflict broadly construed (Special:Permalink/841340595#Capitals00), where they were given an explicit warning by GoldenRing: You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.[13] — kashmīrī TALK 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Those routine reverts for removing disruption cannot be considered as "edit warring". However, I reverted Kashmiri only after he failed to justify his revert as visible from this discussion. He is now misusing this noticeboard since he failed to find any valid basis for his restoring a misleading edit.
    It is ironic that Kashmiri is accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time he is falsifying history over the POV edits which he cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to his false claims.
    His falsification does not stop here. He is talking about an unrelated topic ban to enrich this frivolous report which was already overturned more than 5 years ago.[14] Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, no info was there on your Talk. It may be good to revisit the measure, as it apparently worked so well as long as it was in place. — kashmīrī TALK 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pathetic of you to dream of ways to get rid of me only because you lost a content dispute and your frivolous report also got debunked.With this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary) by you despite evident failure on talk page, it is clear that you are causing disruption and misusing this noticeboard to win content dispute. See WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These were no "routine reverts". This was POV pushing only by you that was reverted by several independent editors. You've brought significant disruption to the article. Combined with all the warnings about your behavious in other articles – warnings that you've been always immediately removing from your Talk – I honestly believe the level of disruption you cause is reaching a point where a sanction is necessary. — kashmīrī TALK 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ironic that you are falsely accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time you are falsifying history over your POV edits which you cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to your false claims. If anyone is being disruptive then that is you as evident from your frivolous report, this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary), and now your meaningless rants. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined So much edit warring is going on that it really seems wrong to just single out one editor. Maybe we'd benefit from full protection. As to the instant dispute, it seems like the relevant talk page discussion only involved the two of you, so it can't really be called consensus particularly when neither of you changed your minds. And really, the issues here are clearly greater than this one article. Maybe it should go to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KNIM123 reported by User:D.S. Lioness (Result: Warnings, Semi)[edit]

    Page: Anna Panagiotopoulou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: KNIM123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 1

    2

    3

    Diffs of the user's KNIM123 reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

    Comments: The conversation in his talk page is in Greek because we are both Greeks. With Google translate i think you can read it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KNIM123 wants the actress to be older (born in 1945), User:D.S. Lioness (who filed this report) wants the actress to be younger, born in 1947. The sources vary. I can't figure out what the IP editors want, but one of them is blanking part of the article. It appears that the two registered accounts have been reverting about the actress's birth year since about May 9, so this is a long-term edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit war involving several IPs is going on for weeks. The page can be semi-protected for now. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CaptainCommonSense reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

    Page: Ana Navarro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CaptainCommonSense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [20]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]
    4. [24]
    5. [25]
    6. [26]

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

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

    Comments:
    Persistent POV-pushing, OR-oriented editing even after various users explained why this is inappropriate. KyleJoantalk 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Дејан2021 reported by User:DerbyCountyinNZ (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

    Page: Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Дејан2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Page has been returned to consensus version. [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: See the page history for full edit war: [30]

    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]

    Resuming the above war after expiry of their block: [35]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User blocked for edit warring: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] [38]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

    Comments:
    Page protection was requested resulting instead in both parties to the edit war being blocked, 1 for a week (due to previous EW block) and the above user for 24 hours. That user resumed the edit war within a day of their block expiring. Brought here as directed on resumption of EW. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by [[User:{{subst:Wikieditor969}}]] (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1211797731

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&action=history#:~:text=15%3A37%2C%2025%20March%202024
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1219662957
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1220631242
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1222362720



    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:

    • 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) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BoldGnome reported by User:Daniel Case (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BoldGnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [40]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. [44]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

    Comments:

    I am involved in this one, so for once I'm the reporting user because this user is acting way too much like so many other editors reported here and eventually blocked, i.e., evincing a battleground mentality, editing tendentiously and refusing to seriously discuss edits while continuing to revert.

    The roots of this go back to January, when the article attracted a lot of views and editing following Gypsy-Rose Blanchard's release from prison. I had done most of the research and writing on the article back in 2017, and as a review of the talk page and archive would show, some people have come by to criticize the way the article was written (when the crime was fresher in everyone's mind and neither defendant had been tried) often in disparaging tones and not really offering specific constructive criticisms when prompted to do so, although I did eventually come to see the points some of them made).

    One of them then went by the name Cjhard, and after one such discussion where after expressing some of the same criticism of much of this criticism as rather drive-by in nature, I nevertheless some appreciation for the issues raised and willingness to work with anyone who would constructively address them in rewriting the article intro. Apparently, Cjhard considered this an expression of ownership, and then left the discussion and the page.

    The "version reverted to" above is the version of the intro they recently wrote. Unaware that they had changed their username in the interim, I edited it mainly for grammar and MOS issues, explained my edits on the talk page while generally expressing approval of its overall structure (in talk page diff above), only for BG to brusquely revert me as linked above. I reverted again, and in their ensuing revert they directed me to this curt response on the talk page, which as I have noted in my response misinterprets consensus ... also, since when have we ever needed consensus to correct grammar or improve wording as long as it doesn't have any bearing on the facts?

    I have since then made only minor edits to the intro addressing some of the purely technical problems with their language, but apparently that's been too much for Cj/BG, who clearly believes that the article intro must be worded THEIR WAY and only their way (See, for instance, the redundant phrasing restored here, the needless repetition of a name restored where a pronoun would do, and similarly here), regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard.

    In perusing BG's talk page, I also found this discussion interesting and relevant to this report. Here, they are asked nicely about having made a revert which also went beyond the scope of the problem addressed and (at least in the other editor's opinion) introduced greater issues in the process. When pressed with specifics about this, they again refused to discuss. Although the other editor was properly blocked for violating ARBECR by initiating the discussion, to me that does not make the issue, and Cj/BG's behavior, any less pertinent here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned User:BoldGnome on their talk page that they were risking a block. They have not edited since that time. I would wait a bit and see what they decide. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Kazanchis reported by User:GSS (Result: Declined; GSS warned)[edit]

    Page: Draft:David Merriman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "The Kazanchis moved page Draft:David Merriman to David Merriman"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) "General note: Disclosure requirements for paid editing under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
    2. 08:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This is definitely an undisclosed paid editor who is desperate to get their work restored. I asked them multiple times not to move the drafts to the main namespace and to submit them for review, but all requests were ignored. They denied any conflict of interest but failed to answer my questions about the images. On top of that, there is a very strong case of proxy/meatpuppetry. I have already filed the case and am waiting for an admin to look at it. The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Kazanchis. GSS 💬 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who is reading this, I have declared multiple times that I do not have any COI with my contributions. But, I am not understanding why the user GSS keeps saying I am paid for my edits. He has no single evidence for doing so and I believe it is him who is violating the Wikipedia terms. If GSS has evidence than belief show it and then I will get blocked. But, his false claim hits nerve. Rather, I feel like, because he do it, he thinks any other editor also do it. The Kazanchis (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't provided an explanation on how on earth you managed to find File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg and File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg on Flickr just after they were uploaded by "Chinthaka DG," and then surprisingly user Chinthaka1701 was registered the same day Mahendra Jayasekera was created by you. I asked you the same question on your talk page, and you completely ignored it. GSS 💬 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined. GSS, you should not be move-warring over whether the article should be in draft space or article space. See WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. This is a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bbb23:, I respect your observation and decision to warn me. However, please note that the articles were draftified per WP:DRAFTREASON #1, and WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that editors with a conflict of interest have no right to object to draftification. This is a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid editing, and I am not the only one who believes that. Thank you. GSS 💬 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aileen Friesen reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Indefinitely blocked; Rahio1234 warned)[edit]

    Page: History of the chair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Aileen Friesen (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:

    Violation of WP:3RR Rahio1234 13:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've indefinitely blocked Aileen Friesen as a sock, for edit-warring, and for personal attacks against Rahio1234. Rahio1234, you reverted eight times. The only reason I'm warning you instead of blocking you is because of the history of that page and the addition of that particular material repeatedly to the article; in other words, there's an argument that the addition of the material is vandalism and therefore exempt under WP:3RRNO, even though, in my view, it is not vandalism. Regardless, your method of dealing with it is poor. Finally, when you file a report on this page, you must do so properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 reported by User:Robertsky (Result: /64 blocked for a week)[edit]

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

    User being reported: 2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
    2. 08:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "This page tells about all types of Peranakan not only Chinese Peranakan"
    3. 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
    4. 10:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) "This page discusses the type of Peranakan ethnicity, not only the Chinese Peranakan, after this I will be more extensive up to Indonesian Peranakan and Borneo Peranakan."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Peranakans."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Clear CIR/IDNHT. May be block evasion too as this is related to Peranakan Chinese, which the article was moved to after a now blocked editor insisted on a poor attempt at working on the article. There should be a base article/set index for the Peranakan title, however as Rosguill pointed out at Special:Permalink/1224297316, the version this IP editor is putting in is sub par. – robertsky (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do note that I also have a standing request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Peranakans to protect the page. Being involved, I am not exercising my admin tools on this. – robertsky (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week 2405:3800:84B:1E32:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PicturePerfect666 reported by User:ImStevan (Result: Both in breach of 1RR, reporter pageblocked for 48 hours, PicturePerfect666 blocked for 1RR and personal attacks)[edit]

    Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: PicturePerfect666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    2. 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    3. 14:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

    Other relevant diffs:

    1. 03:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) – removal of content
    2. Edit warring on the talk page:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Removal_of_content
    2. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Intro_paragraph_of_incidents
    3. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Complaints_regarding_a_specific_user

    Comments: The user is constantly pushing their POV on the article, citing POV breaches. Despite multiple discussions being led on the talk page, user claims that consensus has been achieved, whilst insulting [1][2] users that oppose their POV, and engaging in WP:BLUDGEON, as you can see on the talk page of the article in question. The user was already warned by two admins of making comments in bad faith — IмSтevan talk 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bad faith report by a user engaged in highly personal comments and POV pushing on a contentious article. They do not come here with clean hands and boomerang applies to this user as they are not behaving in a way to further the goals of Wikipedia and are behaving disruptive and this report is yet another disruptive action by them.
    The person making the report has engaged antagonistically for a prolonged period and has made personal attacks on users have ‘an agenda’ or similar. The moved where I placed comments on a talk because they wanted it in another place which is the height of being disruptive and acting in bad faith for no reason other that to cause annoyance. Additionally a whole section on a talk page dedicated to attacking a user who they disagree with should not be on a talk page of an article but on a user talk page which is where discussion was moved to but the reporting user insisted on keeping the inappropriate discussion on the article talk page. A third party has subsequently closed and collapsed the inappropriate section.
    The person reporting is in clear violation of rules on bold, revert, discuss. They have run in bad faith to a notice board, after engaging in disruptive editing in violation of BRD even after it being expressly made known to them. They are not doing this report in good faith.
    Additionally only a technical point three reverts does not violate the three revert rule.
    Personally I’d like to take the person making the report out to the woodshed for their behaviour. I though know that on a topic such as this where the user is heated and has strong opinions, it’s not a good use of a tones time. The person making the report needs speaking to, to ensure they engage constructively and not antagonistically Wikipedia as they are doing on such a disruptive way.
    In short the reporting user is not behaving to the standards expected of someone in good faith and collaboratively, the ignore Wikipedia Policies and guidelines and make bad faith disruptive action such as this report. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When everybody is telling you that you're wrong, including staff, perhaps trying to shift the blame is not the move — IмSтevan talk 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both edit-warring, and PP666 is making personal attacks. Who is this "staff" of which you speak? And a reminder to you both - there are significant restrictions on edits concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which you both appear to have breached. Acroterion (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. Can you please add the appropriate warnings templates to the page as I feel like me doing so would be inappropriate. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More evidence of bad faith from the reporter, also ‘staff’ talk about a fawn to authority. Additionally broad brush sweeping rubbish such as ‘When everybody is telling you that you're wrong’ is tosh. Nothing of the sort occurred. Inappropriate personalised sections and alike are not the checkmate or gotcha you think they are. Finally, ‘shift the blame’ this is not a one way street. You must be aware of WP:Boomerang, bring the reporter gives you no immunity for your behaviour which has been petty, vindictive, assuming bad faith, targeted, personalised, and against the numerous civility and editing practices. You have some of the least clean hands of any person making a report I’ve encountered. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already there, and you're about to be blocked for violating 1RR and for the personal attacks above. Acroterion (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours ImStevan is pageblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR, PicturePerfect666 is siteblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:WordSilent (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Donald Tusk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49] (11:40, 16 May 2024)
    2. [50] [51] [52] (16:04, 16 May 2024‎ - 16:05, 16 May 2024‎)
    3. [53] (00:46, 17 May 2024‎)
    4. [54] (18:14, 18 May 2024‎)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, it has been discussed on the article's talk page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

    Comments:

    There was a content dispute between me and the user as whether the Donald Tusk article should include pronunciation guide (see the article's talk page). As our discussion came to the stalemate, a WP:3O was requested to help settle down the content dispute. When the third opinion turned out to be unfavorable for the user, they continued to delete the pronunciation guide from the article.

    They justify their reverts in a seemingly WP:OWN way as I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. The user appears to have no desire to solve the dispute constructively, but rather keep on pushing their changes so the article is formatted the way they like.

    As far as I'm aware, it's not the first time the user has engaged in a dispute like this. Their similar disputes include those at Czech Republic (talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Lex Fridman (AN thread, user talk 1, user talk 2, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4), and a previous one at Donald Tusk (AN thread, talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3).

    There is also an investigation open about whether the user is someone else's sock account. WordSilent (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ 1
    2. ^ 2
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1224526947"