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 173.73.10.191 (talk) at 01:32, 21 August 2018 (→User:Ahunt reported by User:173.73.10.191 (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:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned)

    Page: Giessbach Bahn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ZH8000 (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]
    4. [5]

    All in the space of 1 hour and 2 minutes.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm uninvolved, but there appears to be no warning issued in this instance. However, ZH8000 is well aware of the rule because he issued a warning to the other warring editor (who did not cross 3RR) just two minutes after he crossed the line with his fourth revert. ([6])

    I have no comment on the merit of the dispute other than to observe that it appears to a WP:LAME argument.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None that I can find.

    History

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s)) 7RR
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours) 6RR
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: stale) 5RR (includes 4RR within 24 hours) Note: Closed by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and had (initially) supported ZH8000's edit (thus in breach of his admin status).

    Comments:

    Once again the issuance of a warning to the other editor involved shows ZH8000's continued belief that the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. TheVicarsCat (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned The reverting is stale now, so just a reminder will suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Please be aware of that the involved IP was blocked for vadalism only shortly afterwords (see 2.44.172.174's block). Please be also aware of that TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)'s almost only intention seems to be to police and therefore to discredit me – just check his history (60% or more of his "contribution" is targeting my edits, since he started on May 18)! It is indeed a lame argument that he is not involved - in a further sense. His motivation however stay unclear. And of course there were attempts to resolve the dispute, just see Talk:Giessbach Bahn. Thanks -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add a note in here for the record. ZH8000 is once again resorting to misinformation in that the IP involved (85.255.232.36) has not been blocked for vandalism, or indeed anything. ZH8000 has also be warned countless times that if he does not behave as expected, people are bound to pursue him. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ZH8000 was referring to another edit war, at Canton of Ticino, where IP 2.44.172.174 was deliberately trolling with edit comments such as "It's not needed loser, thanks" or "Let's see if Dh8000 has the brains to keep this correction up". Accordingly, your aspersions are unfounded, and repeated attacks on ZH8000 may be construed as hounding. — JFG talk 18:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JFG: Precisely. My aspersions are entirely well founded. 2.44.172.174 has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. This has been a standard ZH8000 tool to deflect blame away from himself or at least make it appear that someone else was also at fault. He has dragged uninvolved users (usually IPs) into several disputes in which he has been involved. ZH8000 has already taken me to ANI complaining of following his edits. He was told not to pursue it, but he repeatedly recycles the allegation. ZH8000 repeatedly attempts to enforce the rules against others while believing that they do not apply to him. Evidence: the 3RR warning to 85.255.232.36 while ZH8000 was already at 4RR (and he has done this several times and been warned about it - yet he still does it). Edit histories exist so that an editor's edits can be properly scrutinised by others and any editor so doing is "making proper use of the tool"' (direct quote from an administrator). I am aware that he follows my edits so it works both ways, the only problem for ZH8000 is that he can't find anything else to complain about. If he were to follow the rules, we would get along just fine.
    I conceed that there was a discussion on the talk page (I followed the talk link from the tab at the top of the page but was unwittingly redirected to a talk page that had no discussion so I believed that there was none). However, ZH8000, as usual, did not start the discussion (as WP:BRD demands as he was the editor originally reverted). It was started by 85.255.232.36, but ZH8000's repost was not an attempt at eliciting a consensus (it never is - he doesn't work by consensus), but just his standard declaration that he is right and therefore every one else must be wrong (he has even resorted to raising an SPI complaint against five other editors who were telling him he was wrong - and chucked in two unrelated IPs to boot). He even resorted to making an ANI complaint accusing every editor who was telling him he was wrong anywhere of being one socking editor (including yet another two unrelated IPs). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder who is following who. But that's for another time and another place. Present case is closed. — JFG talk 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rusf10 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Bruce Ohr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Involvement with Trump-Russia dossier */ - as per WP:CLAIM"
    2. 16:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "not sure what is being called "claims from tweets", information is reliably sourced and properly attributed"
    3. 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "restoring long-standing reliably sourced sourced content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 1RR */ new section"
    2. 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 1RR */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Clear violations of 1RR; 16:31 edit restores wholesale his partisan-tinged negative depiction of a living person, then his 23:31 edit reverts my mild attempt to note that the Nunes memo claims are just that - claims. User wants to use partisan sources to disparage a living person who has become targeted by the President of the United States and a "right-wing conspiracy theory" (per NYT) and reverts any attempt to tone down the material or make clear that it is questionable. The article needs protection, a bunch more eyes and people who aren't partisan warriors with axes to grind. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retaliatory filing, see above.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have clean hands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This certainly looks retaliatory, and claiming that this two-character diff (changing "claimed" to "stated") is a revert seems preposterous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Then as "stated" to "claimed" is the only thing Rusf10 claims I reverted, his report must be equally preposterous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)"Claimed" and "stated" have two very different connotations, and a revert is a revert, even if it's a 0-character revert. That being said, this does seem retaliatory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True. After having jumped farther down the rabbit hole than I'd like, I think encouraging both editors to not edit the article for 24 hours is the best option. I'm not sure enforcing 1RR on that article is helpful, and both editors have violated the letter (though not necessarily the spirit) of the rule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours, beginning with my last edit earlier tonight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ithad reported by User:Saqib (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ithad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
    2. 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk)[1] as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
    3. 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring on Imran Khan and several other BLPs. Ignoring the Talk:Imran_Khan#22nd? Saqib (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administartor

    the user Saqib mislead the users. Imran Khan sworn as 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan. Wikipedia may verify this.talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ithad reported by User:Störm (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ithad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855434321 by Störm (talk) pl check ur talk page"
    2. 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855434141 by Störm (talk) what to discuss in talk page?"
    3. 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855432689 by Saqib (talk) dont use wrong edits to mislead wikipedia users"
    4. 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855431876 by Saqib (talk)[2] as sworn 22nd PM of Pakistan"
    5. 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan"

    References

    1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1427560
    2. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1427560
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Imran Khan. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 16:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "/* 22nd? */"
    Comments:

    Broke WP:3RR rule. Störm (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    here are the link of the wikipedia List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan (Ithad)(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fredverdi reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Fredverdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855484128 by Zubin12 (talk) You are not respecting the npov policy. Enforced monogamy is a well known anthropological concept and does not belong to the category of things that can have several meanings. You don't get to decide what it means because you don't like Jordan Peterson. Do your research. Thanks."
    2. 17:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855479956 by RichardWeiss (talk) If you go read the source, you'll see it is Jordan Peterson clarifying his point after the rumour, and explaining what he DID mean and what he did NOT mean. There is NO better source in this case than Peterson himself reacting to the misunderstanding and clarifying his ideas. And "the readers" aren't in the wrong. I'm merely reporting on a well established misunderstanding."
    3. 16:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 855477959 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) No, this edit does not violate npov at all, and in this case Peterson himself is the best source to explain how he was misconstrued. Indeed no one knows what Jordan Peterson meant better than Jordan Peterson himself."
    4. 16:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Gender relations and masculinity */ I added a few details regarding enforced monogamy as well as the way in which Peterson's remark on the topic was subsequently misunderstood."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jordan Peterson. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    On the first or second edit, depending on how you view it, the user violated the BLP discretionary sanctions. There is a very large editnotice that comes up when you edit the article warning that you can only revert once in a 24-hour period. Regardless, the user has edit-warred or breached 3RR, again depending on how you count. More important, the material the user is continually re-adding is so disruptive in part as to constitute vandalism. If I were not WP:INVOLVED, I would have already indeffed the user. The fact that they are new shows clearly that they have an agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursSarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Javiero Fernandez reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Indef)

    Page: Wannabe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Javiero Fernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. fifth revert, this time of an IP
    6. this might count as a sixth revert, as they changed the release date again

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The IP they reverted warned the user about adding unsourced genres

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not occur, it appears.

    Comments:
    Stumbled across this because it's on my watchlist; Javiero Fernandez has been edit warring with @SnapSnap: to restore an additional release date (against Template:Infobox song). Both users should know better, but I'm reporting Javiero Fernandez here because they've blatantly broken 3RR by making at least five reverts on the page in different areas (four over the release date, once over the genre) in what looks to be less than 24 hours to me. Just a note: A simple glance at Javiero's contributions reveal they've recently gotten into edit wars on Aladdin, List of highest-grossing animated films, Proud of Your Boy, etc. Also, minutes before I undid Javiero's for changing the release date again (as it should be stay the earliest release), the IP they reverted looks to have come back and reverted them for the unsourced genre addition: [12]. Ss112 06:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked Bbb23 to run a CheckUser on this user before I filed this report because I found their editing pattern suspicious, and it looks like they were blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tarook97, who edit-warred extensively and also used other accounts to back their reverts up. It looks like they couldn't stay away from Wikipedia for six months without socking, as Drmies suggested on their talk page. Ss112 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:A4A2:D8D7:9156:C2C3 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    LazyTown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:A4A2:D8D7:9156:C2C3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 08:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. Talk:LazyTown#English_language
    Comments:

    IP is removing " English-language" from the LazyTown article without any sort of explanation as to why, They've been warned and told go to the talkpage but have instead reverted SummerPHD and myself, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has a new IP (2001:BB6:3B0C:C658:29B3:44:711A:B842) and has immediately continued the edit war, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:47.184.178.75 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Mansplaining (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    47.184.178.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 03:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC) to 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 03:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
      2. 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Update"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) to 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Update"
      2. 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Updates"
    6. 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Updates"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 06:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC) to 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      1. 06:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Corrected content"
      2. 06:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Updated content"
      3. 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Added content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Four edits now after 3rr warning. Has been asked to provide sources and warned for vandalism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Pending changes protected by Swarm. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.163.227.19 reported by User:NewEnglandYankee (Result: Blocked / warned)

    Page: Rashida Tlaib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.163.227.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    4. [17]
    5. [18]
    6. [19]
    7. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Comments:
    The user wants to insert language into the lede stating that Tlaib supports "elimination of the state of Israel", which is a curiously strong way to refer to the One-state solution. Their sources tend to Breitbart. Obviously a neutrally-worded section in the article body describing the sources' actual, non-interpreted reporting, with a summation in the ledge, would be fine and dandy. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LivinRealGüd reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Warned)

    Page: Bank of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LivinRealGüd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24] [25] - part of a continuous series of edits removing huge amounts of sourced content - I reverted the part that I saw here [26]
    2. [27] [28] further large removals several hours later. I made another revert when I noticed some tag bombing [29]
    3. [30] large removals continue. I restore the huge amount of sourced content removed several hours prior that I hadn't noticed earlier [31]
    4. [32] this is reverted and marked as minor

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Comments:
    I have never edited this article before beyond adding a short description. I recommended to the editor to start an RfC or split discussion, because I am not involved with the article, but I am very concerned that he chose to make a fourth revert continuing to remove huge amounts of sourced content and that edit warring to delete multiple sourced sections is likely to continue without administrator intervention. I also don't want to go over 3RR myself, so perhaps someone else can take a look and see if the content should be restored/discussed before removal. (Editor is still removing content from the article). Seraphim System (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted you once, thats not edit warring. You don't seem to have a handle on what reverting means. In the future, its customary to alert the editor that you've reported them to the notice board. We were having a discussion but you decided to step out, which is fine. My edits were indeed large and did indeed remove a lot of content. I was being WP:BOLD and decided to WP:FIXIT. Its interesting that you want editors to "come take a look" at the page you were just editing instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing on this notice board. If you have content disputes, take it to the talk page. This is not the place for you to request comments on content disputes, try WP:RFC. LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with being BOLD but you continued to remove large amounts of content after your change was reverted and I proposed you start a split/spinout discussion. Since you are still saying WP:FIXIT I don't think you are going to stop and wait for a consensus to form on the talk page regarding the removals without administrator intervention. When you started editing the article it was 108,417 bytes over the course of several hours you have reduced it to 73,931 bytes. A revert is any edit or series of edits that undoes another editors work in whole or part. I would say deleting around 30% of the article counts as undoing other editors work.Seraphim System (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed large amounts of the article, thats called editing Wikipedia. All the contested content was left unchanged per WP:TALK. You're still not getting it. The WP:3RR means that I reverted your edits three times in an edit war. Me editing the article three (and more) times doesn't count. You're losing your argument on the talk page and you wanted to use the notice board as a quick way out. I can't say I have't seen this before. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my. Please clarify why are you editing like this LivinRealGüd? So basically you have removed completely the bonus controversy, the Parmalat controversy and loads of other negative information claiming they are "repeated" elsewhere?! Where? This is whitewashing of the article. It's not just your multiple reverts crossing 3RR, your edits are absolutely suspicious and I question your credentials. My recommendation would be an immediate block, unless you clarify what in heavens are you up to? Lourdes 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes, I would love to clarify "why I edit like this". I always have. I don't know what you mean by "questioning my credentials" or what that entails. If I see poorly written articles with poorly sourced content that goes against Wikipedia's core content policies I like to make bold and decisive edits. Thats how I took Jeff Bezos to Good Article status earlier this year. A similar event happened there, a large "controversies" section was taken out and reincorporated back into the main part of the article as it should be. White washing would be when I go to articles and delete negative information and keep positive information. Thats clearly not whats happening. You can see from my edit history, I don't do this and never will (nor would I want to). Telling me I have "suspicious" edits and "questioning my credentials" is a serious case of assuming bad faith. I've dealt with multiple finance related articles and brought them to Good Article status by questioning and challenging WP:RECENTISM and WP:TMI. When I edit articles two things happen, either editors follow my edits and make improvements as I go along and discuss on the talk page. Or they don't actually look at my edits and what I'm removing and adding and decided to make assumptions. Do me a favor. Click on the Bank of America article right now (as you've currently reverted it). Take a look at all that unsourced content, take a look at that tone of voice, that legalistic writing, all that poorly sourced controversies section, all that information that is mentioned twice on the article (for example BofA's involvement during the 2008 financial crisis, which is mentioned three times). I usually don't have to deal with this because editors like Seraphim System know they're in the wrong and work with me to fix it. This user has a history of adding legalistic information into articles with personal analysis sprinkled in. Do I question their involvement with the article? Absolutely. But thats a discussion for their talk page or BofA's talk page. I tried to have a discussion with this user but they left the talk page. Thats on them. I would appreciate you restoring the article as I left it. If you'd like come join me on the talk page and lets discuss why having 60-70% of the article either about lawsuits or controversies is against WP:NPOV. I'm an experienced editor making bold edits to improve an article. I think you know whats happening here is different from what Seraphim System is proposing. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkusSchulze reported by User:Nardopolo (Result: Both blocked )

    Page: STAR voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&diff=855712679&oldid=855701753

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STAR_voting&action=history

    This one is pretty simple. Editor MarkusSchulze is defending his note that relies on an unpublished and biased source, that also runs contrary to Wikipedia's definition of the term in question.

    Indeed. The discussion regarding the edits is presented in the talk page. Schulze stopped discussing there when it was clear his section lacked support. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:STAR_voting

    Comments:
    Looking for consistency in interpretation of other terms defined on Wikipedia here. Voting method criteria are binary -- they are not in any way subject to "wider sense of the word" interpretations. Schulze's efforts here are simply to regurgitate unsupportable internet FUD regarding a particular voting method, and should be prevented. Just one guy's opinion. Nardopolo (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When someone proposes a new election method, it is his burden to show which properties this method has; it is not the burden of the community. STAR voting has never been analyzed in a peer-reviewed journal. What User:Nardopolo does is: He claims that, whenever it hasn't been proven in a peer-reviewed journal that STAR voting doesn't have a certain property, he can claim that it has this property. Markus Schulze 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Millzipede reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Page protected)

    Page: The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Millzipede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

    Comments:
    IP user Special:Contributions/209.20.37.82 have removed a picture of a recurring guest in a reality TV show. All the other pictures posted that weren't removed are for all main cast members. Then Millzipede reverted that edit. While I agreed with the IP user to remove the image, because in my opinion, main cast members should be the only ones to have their photos posted in the section. So me and along with another IP Special:Contributions/47.208.76.60 have reverted Millzipede's revert. Only to warn both of us that if we revert his/her edit that we would be reported. So its basically three are against of keeping the picture in the article, while Millzipede can't compromise with the other editors and claimed that we are the ones edit warring. Hotwiki (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BarbadosKen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Keith Ellison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    BarbadosKen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "Removing the section is a WP:BLP violation. More information is coming out. Ellison now says that Monahan contacted him for roadside assistance."
    2. 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ balance out the sentence with what has been acknowledged vs. what has been denied."
    3. 04:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Domestic violence allegations and denial */ There is no need to quote the son verbatim. Paraphrasing him and summarizing should be sufficient (no need to include what profanities Ellison allegedly used)."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Keith Ellison. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Precise wording */ re, request self-rv"
    Comments:

    Page is under a 1RR restriction per [41]. Multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations on talk page as well. Reverting a BLP vio in talk space shortly, too. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I must say that your talk page revert is beyond bizarre and is twilight zone material (normally edit wars are in the article, not the talk page). I have undone your revert. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexatious complaint. The first 2 edits are Barbados moderating BLP for NPOV which should be exempt. VQuakr has been gaming 1RR to prevent ANY mention of an event covered by all the major outlets even with consensus on the talk page to include it. And to call this a "BLP vio" is beyond a stretch. BOOMERANG. 31.207.35.118 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs #2 and #3 are not reverts. I don't understand this report. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:106.77.165.230 and user:106.76.193.138 reported by User:Tuftcabin (Result: )

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    reverted 4 times,a disruptive IP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/106.77.165.230 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

    Comments:
    This IP belongs to user:Bonadekphone a sock of user:Bonadeaphone Edit history confirms this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/106.77.165.230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/106.76.193.138 The above 2 IP are disruptive IP s

    User:Binksternet reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: No action)

    Page: Rent control in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [42]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:


    Sorry if this format is not quite ideal, this is the first time I have had the need to report anyone. Thank you for your time.

    Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

    User:Ahunt reported by User:173.73.10.191 (Result: )

    Page: 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ahunt (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. Suspected IP sock reverting: [50]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit message: [51]

    Comments:

    Please note Ahunt is one of several editors protecting this article against disruptive editing. There have not been three edits in 24 hours. There is zero evidence about socking and you would need to file a WP:SPI if there were. Since the IP came here after the page was protected they may want to read WP:BOOMERANG MarnetteD|Talk 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, disputing a change and asking to start a discussion on the talk page is hardly disruptive. What **was** disruptive is continuously reverting those edits, leaving the article in a disputed state as Ahunt did. Additionally, edit-warring does not seem to be limited to 3RR violations.
    IP suspected of socking due to similar edit summary style, timing of revert, and the edit warring notice it left on my talk page (as Ahunt had done some minutes before) - but I don't know if an SPI is necessary unless further disruption is seen from the IP. Again, just "suspected". 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=855815919"