Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78Game (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 21 May 2021 (→‎User:Maxandleoinc reported by User:78Game (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    User:168.245.155.5 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Semi)

    Page: List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023750018 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
    2. 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023748492 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
    3. 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023744644 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC) on Talk:List of Hail Mary passes in American football "/* ongoing vandalism problem */"

    Comments: Just to be up-front about it, I myself broke 3rr earlier today and subsequently self-reverted. This series of IPs has been edit warring at List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to insert the never-once sourced claim that a particular referee call was erroneous. Other users at the article and talk page, especially PJEckenheim have been contending with this behavior since 2016. An attempt at compromise was made at the talk page in this section. For context, a year long semi-protection ended on April 12. The edit war resumed on April 13 and there were 9 attempts by the above IPs to insert their 75-80 byte content before the page was semi-protected again on May 11. After the 48-hour protection expired, the edit-warrior reverted 10 times before semi-protection was reinstated. It will expire on June 1, and there's every reason to expect the disruption will start up again without some other remedy. Please let me know if it's appropriate or not to ping the admins that have taken action so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected five years. It appears that the same guy has been trying to insert his material since 2016 without success, so the remedy is proportioned to the problem. I considered a block of 168.245.155.0/24 but it couldn't be made long enough to address the problem on this one article. Discussed this with the previous protecting admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alejandroprpr and User:Dash9Z reported by User:Donald Albury (Result: Two editors warned)

    Page: List of governors of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Alejandroprpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2] Alejandroprpr
    2. [3] Dash9Z
    3. [4] Alejandroprpr
    4. [5] Dash9Z
    5. [6] Alejandroprpr
    6. [7] User:Donald Albury
    7. [8] Alejandroprpr
    8. [9] User:Gladamas
    9. [10] Alejandroprpr
    10. [11] Dash9Z
    11. [12] Alejandroprpr
    12. [13] Dash9Z
    13. [14] Alejandroprpr
    14. [15] Dash9Z
    15. [16] Alejandroprpr
    16. [17] Dash9Z
    17. [18] Alejandroprpr

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] Warned Alejandroprpr, [20] Blocked Alejandroprpr, [21] Warned Alejandroprpr, [22] Warned Dash9Z, [23] Blocked Alejandroprpr

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [25] Alejandroprpr, [26] Dash9Z

    Comments:

    I initially saw Alejandroprpr as the edit warrior, and did block him twice. However, Dash9Z, although he did respond to my attempt on the talk page to start a discussion, has also been edit warring. I am involved, and do not feel I can take any more admin actions in this dispute. - Donald Albury 12:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left detailed warnings for both parties. It appears that one or more blocks may be needed if they won't agree to wait for consensus. The party who has already been blocked twice may not have a future, but the other is a longtime editor who has never previously been blocked EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:喂番茄 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: )

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023919865 by SounderBruce (talk)"
    2. 02:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023913668 by SounderBruce (talk)"
    3. 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023906730 by SounderBruce (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ningbo."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User is deleting an edit notice that I placed after noticing some overly-promotional language in two sections of the article. After addressing their question on my user talk page and adding a warning on their talk page, they proceeded to make a third revert. SounderBruce 02:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I think the edit warning put by user User:SounderBruce was not well-grounded. The information in the economic and tourism section along with many other sections of "Ningbo" was previously outdated and many data have not been updated since 2013, so I have been trying to update the article with the latest data. Firstly, I have not got the time to update the economic section yet, so as you can see, the data in that section are still for the year 2013. I did update a paragraph on the economic status of Ningbo in the introduction section (beginning section) of the article, not in the economic section, but the data I used are publicly available on the government website, and the citations are all provided. Secondly, I did update the information in the tourism section by giving a short introduction to each tourism attraction and site. What I did was: 1. grouping the previous tourist sites by subdivisions (locations) of the city, 2. linking those keywords with those already existing articles, 3. giving information about when the tourist sites were built, 4. giving information about what the sites are used for historically and currently. Meanwhile, I did not use any overly-promoting language such as "must-go" to encourage people, just some necessary background information since this is an encyclopedia website. The parts I have updated are all factual information that is verifiable through publically available sources, rather than any commentary or personal opinions. Therefore, please RESPECT other's work, even if some users do not like the information. Wiki is a publically available platform for everyone to get verifiable factual information. When someone is not into the information about a particular city, it does not mean other people are not into it. I think it is very reasonable to ask the user User:SounderBruce: Can you please provide several shreds of evidence by directly quoting the sentences in those parts that you regard as "overly promoting" or fake information? If not, I am afraid the edit warning is not well-grounded.--Commented by 喂番茄 (talk)

    User:TrangaBellam reported by User:Luwanglinux (Result: )

    page:Puya Meithaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    previous version reverted too:

    Diffs of the user's revert:

    1. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)""
    2. 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
    3. 18:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)"" self-reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4. 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
    5. 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
    6. 11:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)""
    7. 06:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "In this revert he removed journal reference from reputable publisher notable under WP:HISTRS stating irrelevant addition "
    8. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)"Although this version was tagged for POV by Kautilya it was the original first content of the article"


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    I have already opened a RFC template for edit dispute in this article to discuss the historicity of the event bonfire or destruction of Puya(traditional texts of Meiteis) during Pamheiba (the hindu convert king) reign which was disputed by some scholars, User is stating that the article puya meithaba is not related with Manipur religion history, monarch Pamheiba reign, Social history of Manipur while the event and its history either folk or written history exist because of religion conversion by the king Pamheiba 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dismiss as frivolous retaliation against my filing (a few days back) which got him blocked. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented about edit-warring.
    • The first diff is by User:Kautilya3. I am certainly not him/her.
    • The second diff is a revert. I alongside K3 rejected his proposed changes.
    • The third diff linked here was self-reverted by me within two minutes.
    • The fifth diff was undoing his restoration of some earlier version of the page without discussion. The current version of the article has been since agreed upon by me as well as the editor, whose version he restored.
    • The sixth diff removed an unused source, which was misrepresented by LuwangLinux. Check the edit-summary in my previous edit.
    • The circumstances surrounding seventh diff is being discussed at talk-page. Also, that deletion can be easily justified as removal of copyright violation (a ground for which LL has been blocked earlier) and not considered as edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User TrangaBellam send me another warning of being blocked [27] that I have violated copyright while I insert history section to the article using my own words for the latest revision he reverted. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    he even reverted notice about this discussion on his talk page,[28] I doubt why he want to show only his achievement at his talk page.this one was reported by user chaipau for his disrupting edit behaviour[29] he removed it too saying he was cleaning his talk page 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The beginning was this edit of Luwanglinux, whereby he copied into a new page, content that was contested and rejected at History of Manipur. It was a textbook example of WP:POVFORK. After I added a POV tag to it, TrangaBellam copied here his own rewrite of the material from History of Manipur, which is a perfectly normal thing to do. This, Luwanglinux counts as a "revert" (diff 8).
    Since Luwanglinux is unable to edit-war any more, he has taken to filibustering on the talk page, making the same points again and again and not getting it. The remaining 5 reverts he points out (one being invalid) are entirely normal under the circumstances.
    Luwanglinux, having just come off a long block, should'nt be doing this. He is slowly but surely exhausting his WP:ROPE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last two reports at AN3 about Luwanglinux are these:
    On that occasion, User:Primefac blocked them for 60 hours for edit warring at Meitei people. (29 September 2020). Primefac suggested that a sanction under WP:GS/CASTE might be considered next time.
    This time, I blocked Luwanglinux for one week due to long term edit warring at Anglo-Manipur War and other articles (5 May 2021)
    Between these two dates, Luwanglinux has also been blocked for sockpuppetry and copyright violations by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure where the threading lies, but it sounds like a topic ban may indeed be in order. The last time I was here about this it was for a different page, so how broad a tban should be set? Primefac (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
    Primefac, if there is to be a tban, it might cover all Manipur-related topics, which is the domain in which the user's contestation lies. It could be a term-limited tban in the first instance, say for 2-3 months. If the user learns nothing from it, the next one can be indefinite. The user is aware of discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, might work. They also received their WP:GS/CASTE warning. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was the closer, I would consider an indefinite block, but a topic ban might be sufficient, if the user could understand it and follow it. It's not as though this is a new person who is just now coming up the learning curve. (Their account was created in September 2020 and they have 1700 edits). I had a frustrating experience while trying to be understood at User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. At the time I was attempting to negotiate an end to a previous war. Due to not getting a workable agreement, I decided on a one-week block as the result of this AN3 complaint. As I mentioned when closing that AN3, 'Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors..'. Taking an aggressive approach to editing while not fully understanding what's going on creates difficulties when working in a disputed area. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing about retaliation, I learned from my mistakes and ready to cooperate always but seems like owing to my bad past this is turning like a boomerang, also I pointed out revert tendency of user TrangaBellam.If this report is bias kindly tell me I will never report again.I never use any sockpuppet since user:Primefac blocked me for that.I am not as well experianced like user Kautilya but I wish to become a good editor not the current scenario I am experiancing..🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trader john1 reported by User:Possibly (Result: Blocked Indefinite)

    Page: Kenneth C. Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Trader john1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023969870 by Possibly (talk) This user seems to be connected to Mr. Griffin"
    2. 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "pre-submission a proposed"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023955607 by Possibly (talk)"
      2. 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "This is my proposed article for Mr. Griffin. Please check. I have removed un-encyclopedic and excessive content and regroup the topics. Please, check our talk page as well."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ r"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Promotional whitewashing */ new section"
    2. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Trader john1 "/* May 2021 */ r"

    Comments:

    Suspected COI editor pushing whitewashed versions of the page. Has also admitted at this diff that the one account represents the edits of a husband and wife team. --- Possibly (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cdman882 reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: University of Louisiana at Lafayette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cdman882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [30]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:05, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[31]
    2. 16:43, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[32]
    3. 16:56, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[33]
    4. 19:28, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[34]
    5. 19:58, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[35]
    6. 00:09, 20 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[36]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 19 May 2021 [37]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:15, 19 May 2021 [38]

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

    Comments:

    Topic of the edit warring may be correct, but editor has been reverted by four different editors in 10 hours. Editor took one of the reverting editors to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user: Frank042316 for a nonsense DE.[40] where WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA [41], [42], ​[43], [44], [45] issues also surfaced. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

    Page: A History of Violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    3. 02:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    4. 23:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on A History of Violence."
    2. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This IP is just one of a series asserting the same edit, removing content from this article without explanation or discussion. Range block may be appropriate. General Ization Talk 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Junefith reported by User:Koncorde (Result: )

    Page: Premier League Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 10:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "No completely false. I am not going to edit war with you. I have sent you an explained rationale on your page and have brought up some valid points in how your adjustment to this page is less informed. You have also failed to make any statement on the reasons for your changes. If you would like to discuss a compromise on a talk page i'm happy too. I have tried to engage in this with you however you have ignored me. I'm reverting you're changes as they don't benefit the informity of this page."
      2. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    6. 18:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I have justified my reasoning on your page. Removing valid information and also removing the colour coding doesn't make this page anymore informing aswell as other areas of significant information you have removed. I have explained my reasoning on you're page"
    7. 18:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "More informing with the key as is. Community Shield is a major honour and is run through the FA as a result is valid"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Premier League Hall of Fame."
    2. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Why are we listing achievements that have nothing to do with their entry into the HOF? */ new section"
    2. 23:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* What accolades should be listed for inductees? */"
    3. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Junefith "/* May 2021 */"

    Comments:

    User has established WP:OWN with regards to the Hall of Fame article, to the extent of using IP to either intentionally or unintentionally circumvent edit warring warnings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.195.5.1 ).

    Some additional edits ( see here Robby reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Junefith&diff=1024063390&oldid=1024060586) and comments to users have made various allegations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premier_League_Hall_of_Fame&diff=1024059059&oldid=1024055575 Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. ) unsupported by anything I or anyone else has said from what I can see. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User has engaged on talk page, but is generally oblivious to policy despite being directed to it repeatedly. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Bobby690 and KullyKeemaKa warned)

    Page: Cr1TiKaL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Bobby690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "yeah you can wait as well."
    2. 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Dude just admit you were wrong and move on. The section is literally for his other names that he is known as."
    3. 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "He has never said that penguinz0 is not his alias. The only thing he has said is that he started going by Cr1TiKaL when he changed his xbox gamer tag. So if anything penguinz0 is his former alias."
    4. 04:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "I didn't say it was his online alias i said that he's also known as penguinz0 which is what the section of the infobox is for. Also if you do a simple google trends comparison you will know that more people search for penguinz0 rather than Cr1TiKaL."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "what do you mean? The note says that penguinz0 is not his online alias but his channel name"
      2. 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    6. 03:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as'"
    7. 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cr1TiKaL."
    2. 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Stop"
    3. 04:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Cite a source then"
    4. 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"
    5. 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cr1TiKaL."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    • @Laplorfill: Thank you. When I attempted to reason with Bobby, I mentioned the WP:BOLD guideline, and I am assuming that he did not bother to read it. Trust me when I say that this is not the first time that I have had to link a Wikipedia guideline in a message to someone when it comes to edit wars. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: Out of me and Bobby, at least I tried to reason with him; meanwhile, he acted sort of hostile toward me and continued to revert revisions that I have made with reasons and linked guidelines. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maxandleoinc reported by User:78Game (Result: )

    Page: Commodore International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Maxandleoinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]
    3. [49]
    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:
    A user named Maxandleoinc keeps adding the website of the copyright holder of the name and not the historic company. They constantly are re-adding it despite the fact I have warned him that it is not the same company. Their username also hints at shared usage. (sorry for the bad English) 78Game (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KyleJoan reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: )

    Page: Chris Cuomo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): Why would you revert grammatical corrections and the formatting of dates? The weight is there, but the relation to the notability isn't. How is one writer in the original report saying it was "not okay" as notable as the network saying it was "inappropriate"? Also, Jones's statement still lacks context. WP:ONUS is still there."
    2. 02:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): The issue isn't Lemann's opinion being reliable, it's whether it's relevant to Cuomo's notability. It's "not okay", it's "inappropriate", how many descriptions are going to include? And why restore Jones's writing without explanation? You're in the business of reverting edits that have nothing to do with this topic too? Please observe WP:ONUS."
    3. 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Incerto501 (talk): This is besides the point, but Poynter is reliable in "determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations". Whether we should assign weight to their own content isn't covered by the consensus listed. They said it was inappropriate. How is it different than what the network said? Why belabor the point? And why revert fixes that have nothing to do with this topic?"
    4. 01:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "copyedits; this heading fails WP:DUE; including Jones's statement in that manner was inappropriate because she only said that Cuomo "should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest issues"; without the proper context, it insinuates that she was singling him out for line-blurring; Lemann is one journalist; why single his opinion out? "joined Lemann" fails WP:SYNTH; the Mediaite report itself fails DUE, see WP:RSP"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Advising Brother */ new section"

    Comments:

    Clear 3RR violation. The editor is removing high-quality sources and has already been reverted by myself and another editor. The editor has not engaged on the talk page and refuses to self-revert. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My first revert removed the description "controversies" from the article, which I viewed as a BLP violation. In addition, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d failed to mention that they themselves violated 3RR.[50][51][52][53] KyleJoantalk 02:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1024263005"