Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slicape (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 7 July 2016 (→‎User:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Slicape (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:64.231.169.3 reported by User:2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313, (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
    User being reported: 64.231.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    An IP Added incorrect and German airdates, and are not supposed to be there. On Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3), He added incorrect airdates for 2 episodes, and German airdates for 7 episodes. On List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes and Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness, he changed the end date from June 29, 2016, the US end date, to January 7, 2015, the German end date. I then revert them, but then, he reverts it to the incorrect info every time. The airdates listed there should be the correct US airdates, not either incorrect, German, or other international airdates. Before this happened, the correct US airdates were listed. 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]

    I have warned the user that he cannot put in international airdates in a US airdate field, but continues to revert it to German airdates. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

    Comments:

    Purpose BOOMERANG for filer. They're edit warring with me now. Major WP:OWN issues. Note that 72.193.84.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the filer geolocate to Las Vegas, likely the same user. If so, some major edit warring occurring. See [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: It is the same user, and I already know that I don't own the page. All I am trying to do is keep the US airdates in the Original airdate box, and not replace it with German airdates, which is also causing lots of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 July 2016
    Who is the same user? You and the other IP? Or me and the IP you filed against? If the latter, you need strong evidence if you're gonna accuse me of socking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For note, nothing in WP:TVMOS precludes the use of international airdates. The filer is mistaken in thinking the airdates must be US ones EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    German airdates are usually placed in footnotes. Same thing with other international airdates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2016
    Please stop adding replies on the same line as EvergreenFir, make the reply on a new line and properly indent it, and use four tildes (~s) to add the signature and date. As for your reply: international airdates would only go in footnotes if they were not the original air dates. If they are the original air dates then they go in the OAD field. The only thing we should be arguing about is whether or not to have an AltDate column and whether first English (Canadian) or first country-of-origin (US) takes priority to inhabit it. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The filer, IP 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313, and IP 72.193.84.75 are the same user, and there is another IP editor too, like stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)
    The problem here is that the US air dates for the later episodes are NOT the original air dates. OAD refers to the first televised broadcast per template:episode list#Parameters, not later televised broadcasts in the nation where the series was produced. The US dates are not even the first English broadcast, which is probably the next most notable dates. Those happened in Canada on YTV. I would also encourage this editor who reported me to properly sign ALL of their posts here and on my talk page. Using the special:diff function would also make for briefer link quotes. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some additional background information for consideration:

    Update: now, it will result in either the IP users editing will be blocked, or those pages will be semi protected. They are also on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)

    Make edit summaries like that again and we're going to ANI. I don't know why this AN3 hasn't been dealt with with a double block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: These pages have been protected for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)
    Yes, by NeilN. Amazing you know about RPP but can't sign your posts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected Multiple IPs edit warring and possible socking. EvergreenFir, you don't get paid enough for this. NeilN talk to me 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StAnselm reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Nothing more to do)

    Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: StAnselm (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. [15]
    2. [16]

    The article is under 1RR restriction.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]. User has been blocked previously for edit warring and disruptive editing [18].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    Comments:
    The article is under 1RR restriction. StAnselm is fully aware of this (see warning above). They are claiming that this is some kind of egregious BLP violation so they get to edit war to their preferred version. This isn't the case. The text is actually well sourced with over a half a dozen sources provided on the talk page [20], [21]. Yes, in the article itself, the text only had one or two sources - but that's because it's silly to have the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]...[111] kind of citing that makes articles look ridiculous. StAnselm knows this. So using BLP here is just an excuse it's just an attempt to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: As I made clear in my edit summary and talk page comment, I was removing a BLP violation, and claiming a BLP exemption. The text in question said that Trump was "widely described as a right-wing populist". There were only two citations for this particular claim, and neither reference even used that phrase. As has been made clear by multiple other editors on the talk page, it is not enough to find a source saying he's right-wing" and another saying he's "populist" - an explicit source is needed. No reference had been given for this particular wording. As a poorly sourced contentious claim, I had to remove it on sight, and I don't really know why I've been reported here. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you're the only one on the article who thinks it's a BLP vio sort of suggests it isn't. And this has been pointed out to you and you decided to violate 1RR anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all - I think you need to read the whole discussion. User:Doc9871, for example, said:

    How on earth was this [9] even supposed to be accepted at face value as "sourced"? Edit summary: "the description itself is fine, although a more explicit source is better". A more "explicit" source? What kind of lazy garbage is this where you can insert a "description" that is unsupported by the source to hold the place for a more "descriptive" source that actually uses the phrase?!

    I suggest you withdraw this report before it booomerangs. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [22] "Speaking as an admin, I would reject the idea the BLP exemption applies to that revert". [23] "Considering that you have been blocked before for edit warring under a fallacious appeal of WP:BLP, do you really think it's a good idea for you to violate the 1RR imposed on this article?". [24] "StAnselm, for all your pontifications on my talk page, you just broke the rule you said I would break, and are thus eminently blockable. NeilN is quite correct that the BLP exemption doesn't apply here".
    These are all comments addressed to you *before* you decided to go and break 1RR on purpose, in some kind of WP:POINT violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no - these comments were all made after I made my second revert. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • StAnselm should know from previous blocks and warnings that what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. In practice, it should be invoked only for removing material that any reasonable person would deem as libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. That criteria was not met in StAnselm's second revert. The material removed "right-wing populist" is a reasonable paraphrasing of the Washington Post source which states "His [Trump's] style is reminiscent of populist and fascist leaders " and in its headline states "Donald Trump may be showing us the future of right-wing politics". This is exactly the kind of gaming the system that brought the very Arbcom case from which the discretionary sanction came. - MrX 22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And has been pointed out to you by multiple editors - and as I said before, I was surprised you didn't know this - right-wing + populist ≠ right-wing populist. So, no - it was not a reasonable paraphrase, as anyone actually familiar with the terminology would know. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I stand by the claim for a BLP exemption - any reasonable person would deem this as "poorly sourced contentious material". MrX, I think you are being unreasonable here. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed out to you right-wing populism actually describes Trump's politics quite accurately. I suggest reading the article and reviewing some sources before concluding otherwise. In any case, 1RR means don't revert more than once. The conspicuous edit notice says You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. If it really is a BLP violation someone else will revert it. You can also report it to one of the many notice boards at your disposal.- MrX 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [25], [26], [27], and notably [28] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is disappointing that User:Volunteer Marek didn't bother to look for sources to support his claim. I'm not saying that Trump has not been described as a "right-wing populist" - I am saying that it is a contentious claim (especially with the phrase "widely described") and that such sources were not in the article (or even on the talk page), and so the claim was poorly sourced. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you consider self-reverting if enough sources were produced now? Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if there was a reliable source saying he was "widely described" in this way. But the talk page discussion seems to be heading towards a consensus that he is "widely described" as "populist" but not as "right-wing populist". StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Even if "right-wing populism" does describe Trump's policies, that would be irrelevant to our BLP policy. It is still a contentious claim, and it needs to be reliably sourced. For BLP policy, it is not good enough for the sources to simply exist. They need to be in the article, and the onus is clearly on the person adding (or wishing to add) the material. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More 2 cents: What I see is claiming BLP on the second revert but only asking for consensus in the first one. I don't think it became a BLP vio within a few hours.--TMCk (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I issued a block before becoming aware of this discussion. I am happy to defer to the judgement of any passing uninvolved admin on this matter as I have said on the user's talk page. They have an unblock request pending where they are claiming a BLP exemption, a claim I disagree with. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    I think this block should be overturned. The matter was clearly contentious, and despite the assertions that it was reliably sourced, I don't think the evidence had been presented to confirm that. Recall three important points:

    • More than one person has pointed out that this is not analogous to a "blue car". It isn't enough to find a source using right-wing and a source using populist. We need sources saying "right-wing populist"
    • Despite assertions that many sources existed, I looked at some, and the ones I looked at failed to support the claim. I urged someone to put together a clear summary, but that has not yet happened.
    • The relevant language is "widely described". Given that almost literally every newspaper and magazine on the planet has written about Trump, "widely described" means there ought to be hundreds. One or two or five doesn't meet the requirement. I haven't seen five. I'm not sure I've seen two.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn block per User:Sphilbrick, as "widely described" is stronger and unsourced statement than the refs support. A ref (or several) saying something...that verifies that those sources (and possibly experts that underly them) have a certain analysis of the subject. The problem on its face here is WP editors thinking it is noncontentious that, absent a WP:CONSENSUS, any one or handful of such WP:PRIMARY sources is equivalent to the WP:SYNTH secondary analysis of the available sources. But even if StAnselm is in the right here, they would do well to recognize how thin the ice might be here, and to seek admin assistance for something of this nature rather than hoping an after-the-fact analysis of their edits will go their way. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're missing the point that the edit being contentious doesn't necessarily make it a BLP violation. If it were, wouldn't you expect that several very experienced editors and admins, including a sitting Arbcom member, would have recognized it as such? StAnselm had other avenues for having the material reviewed or removed. As per usual, he took the most aggressive approach, bulldozing right past the objections of other editors and a prominent, unambiguous warning. This has been an oft-repeated pattern with this editor. It would be prudent to review his block log and the numerous edit warring warnings that he's received in the past few years before recommending the block be lifted. - MrX 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think quibbling over how the sources are paraphrased is the same as a BLP violation. While the wording may need some tweaking it is an accurate summary of the sources. In fact the very sources in question call him a lot worse than that. BLP exemptions rely on other people interpreting the BLP policy like you do, when several other editors disagree with the interpretation of that policy then the exemption will not be reliable.

    What I do think is important is that I don't think StAnselm has any intention of continuing to push their position by reverting further. It is based on that crucial fact that I have unblocked them early. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This does seem to be a violation and so I will endorse the block. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Since the time this report was filed the editor has been blocked and then unblocked. See User talk:StAnselm#July 2016. There does not seem to be a need for further discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HalcyonHaylon reported by User:Peterl (Result: Semiprotected)

    Page: G12 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: HalcyonHaylon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Their only edits have been to this page.

    Their edits have summaries such as "Removed opinionated, non-biased content that is not neutral." The material is acknowledged as contentious and has personal opinions, but it has been worked over by many editors over a long time. The removed section "Concerns" counterbalances the positive other sections. People's personal experiences are relevant in this page.

    They also removed a whole section that had the embedded comment: NOTE: Just because you might disagree with this section doesn't mean you can delete legitimate text, discussion and references. Unsupported changes to this section *will be reverted*.

    I have reverted their changes twice:

    My edits have included this note.

    Another editor posted a message on their talk page, but is was rebuffed. I have posted a "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion" on their talk page.

    What should I do to help ensure this page's "Concerns" section is kept?

    Thank you for your help. peterl (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) talk, You continue to revert removal of biased content and links to the G12 Vision page. In an effort to clean up unsubstantiated material, you have continued to keep the page's content as opinionated and non-neutral. Please provide an explanation for this.[reply]

    • Result: Page semiprotected two months. Use the talk page to explain whatever concerns you have about the article content. See also a counter-report below, filed by HalcyonHaylon about the same article. The disputed material seems to be sourced. The fact that it is critical of the G12 movement is not an argument for removal. Whether to keep it or not depends on editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JordanianExpert reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: )

    Page: Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: JordanianExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [31]
    2. [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [33]

    Comments:

    Violation of 1RR by an account that is not even permitted to edit on this article, WP:ARBPIA3. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am glad this report happened so I could raise the following issues, I call on the board of editors to look into the editing history by Makeandtoss on Mudar Zahran page, 1-He has deleted a huge chunk of the original article multiple times despite it had several reliable sources, this could be easily found if you go further through the edit history of the page. Of course the parts he edited several times without any proper reason or cause were pro-Zahran. 2-He has entered negative information against Zahran using non-reliable sources, such as Ammonnews which is a known pro-Jordan's regime's site, and on top, the Arabtimes.com, the most read in US, has described that site as run by a Jordanian intelligence collonel, he also used three unknown, least read, Jordanian sites to support his edit, a huge violation of Wikiepdia's rules. 3-When one of the editors/users tried to even state that Ammonnews was unreliable, Makeandtoss deleted the entire comment and kept what he wanted, the version he likes that is. 4-In one part in the edit history, Makeandtoss describes reliable Israeli media as Zionist/Israeli propaganda. This exhbits bias. 5-If you read the edit history well, you will see he has used unreliable and unknown Jordanian sites to describe Mudar Zahran as an Israeli mossad agent, something that could have ended up causing physical harm to Zahran, and above all, is pure trashing of the biography of a living person and is against the guidelines of wikipedia rules. 6-I call on all of you to view the entire edit history, Makeandtoss does break the rules. Thanks ---- JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arab Times (US) once claimed that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer. Here's the article, anyone interested can enjoy the style of the website and the amusing content. So if you consider "Arab Times" "reliable", then I am sorry to inform you that no one is going to take you seriously.@JordanianExpert: Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a mess. Makeandtoss, you need to make that argument about the Arab Times on WP:RSN, and I will tell you that if a paper gets something wrong, that doesn't automatically make them unreliable. JordanianExpert, I really encourage you to stop yelling and to make sure you're logged in properly when you start editing. You've now both been warned on your talk pages about the Discretionary Sanctions, and I'm going to leave it at that for now--I'll leave it for the next admin to decide if JordanianExpert needs to punished for violating 1RR which I don't know they knew about. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Do we really need RSN to know that Abdullah II of Jordan didn't seduce his sister? [34]!!! Makeandtoss (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's comments like that, which are of bad faith and do not further the discussion, that make me regret I undid my topic ban. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: No bad faith is intended, but this "newspaper" is evidently unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion, even if it were true so self-evidently. Drmies (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He is arguing that his sources are superior to mine, the sections I removed were simply self-praise spinoffs of sources. "Key Jordanian political figure". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has appeared on admin pages before. See these search hits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello All, I am new, I am not sure I am doing this even right, so, if I am mistaken, please advise me on how to do things and where, and I have to admit Wikipedia could me MORE user-friendly. I am here reporting @Makeandtoss. He has a history of vandalizing “Mudar Zahran” article page. Today, he reloaded, added, a story claiming Mudar Zahran owed money to a bank. The source he uses, Ammonnews, is a yellow journalism, least-reliable site that is not even a considered news source, and on top has a history of faking up stories, including a recent case where Ammonnews made up a whole fake story about The Independent newspaper, further more Arabtimes.com confirms the editor of the site is a Jordanian intelligence colonel. Also, to support his claim, @Makeandtoss adds three more sources which are junk blogger, not even news sites, that have just copied and pasted the original source, Ammonnews. Please, this is below Wikipdia’s stadards and in fact a violation, you should either ban Makeandtoss from editing that page for Mudar Zahran, or allow us ALL to edit it, or simply protect the page, what @Makeandtoss has done for months is trashing the page and attacking everyone who edits it in favor or balance, also, in the history of editing, I have seen he has deleted entire sections which were using very reliable English language sources, this is vandalism, Please stop this fiasco, ALSO, I am trying to report Makeandtoss here, and I am not sure I am doing it right == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

    Information icon

    Ammon news published an article with a picture of the trials' requisition in the official Gazette. Is this also photoshop? Or a conspiracy by the intelligence? Or a conspiracy by the government? As a matter of fact your IP address ADMITTED this! "he was too poor to pay the debt" Now you are denying this and calling it a conspiracy ? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lorisuzanne33 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Not blocked)

    Page
    Noel Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lorisuzanne33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
    2. 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
    3. 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
    4. 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death date"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noel Neill. (TW)"
    2. 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Noel Neill. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
    2. 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
    3. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
    Comments:

    Continual edit warring regardless of warnings and discussion on article talk page. No edit summaries used, no communication by user on article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope so hard that this WP:BOOMERANGs back at you. You have been edit warring with multiple editors on this article removing every single reference to the subject's death. EW is a reliable source: you removed it and claimed it wasn't. The Hollywood Reporter is reliable: you removed it and claimed it wasn't. Yahoo news? Same. New York Daily News? Same. And every time you had the audacity to warn others about edit warring. Helper214 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is protected; are more sanctions needed? —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting back to status quo was done appropriate and per BLP policy. Nothing from a major news source has been reported on her alleged death, only mirror sites and online gossip sites have made mention of it. The "news" of this has been out there for over 24 hours, yet no major news source has reported it? That alone makes it dubious. There have been hoax reports of her death before, the most recent being in October 2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Really?
    But no major news source, huh? Helper214 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, really. Not one in that list is considered a major news source, not one is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's encyclopedic purposes. Especially in regard to a WP:BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a fact? I guess these hundreds of EW references in articles don't exist. Or these for Deadline. Or these for The Hollywood Reporter. I can also point out your lengthy block log for edit warring as proof that you have no idea what you are talking about and have a long history of thinking you WP:OWN articles. Helper214 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    UNTRUE @Winkelvi Several different news sources have reported this unfortunate news. You do not get to make a unilatereal decision as to which source could be used to comply with BLP regulations. You have accused three or four editors of edit wasrring when it is your FOUR reverts in a short time at the article was disruptive. You refused to engae in discussion on the talk page. With your lengthy block record shows a history of edit warring to get your own way, I believe a block is in order to stop your disruption @ wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Wow more disruption by user winkelvi! One edit here: [35] and suddenly the report is against someone else? See header. Trying to assume good faith here but this is getting ridiculous! C.Fred can you please look at this report as it stands now and correct things please. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not interested in arguing about this further, however, I do feel there are a few things that need to be pointed out for those who seem to be missing some of the finer points regarding policy and what was occurring at the article in question:

    1 - The article is a BLP and BLP guidelines state that anything not verified by reliable sources must be removed immediately. There was nothing verified by a reliable source regarding the article subject's death at the time the addition of unsourced/unreliably sourced content and edit warring was occurring. We have to be extra careful with BLP articles, this one is not an exception. 2 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. It is not our job to add content just because it's being reported or discussed online. 3 - We are not here to scoop anyone and there is no deadline in Wikipedia. 4 - If it turns out that Noel Neill's death has occurred and has been verified to be reported by reliable source(s), then it can be added to the article. Until then, there's no rush to get it done. That fact is based on the previous three points. 5 - I added very specific edit summaries citing policy, participated in article talk page discussion, and almost immediately requested pending changes page protection; I was forced to then ask for full page protection. By doing all this, I was hoping those edit warring at the article would get a clue. No one seemed to care and continued edit warring, regardless. This edit warring report was filed against an editor who left no edit summaries and surpassed the 3RR threshold in violation with BLP and 3RR policy. 5 - It seems that the only thing stopping the edit warring in spite of 3RR and BLP policy was having the page fully protected. 6 - What was happening at the article when the edit warring was occurring is against BLP policy no matter how you slice it.

    -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Paint it any way you like but you repeatedly reverted edits with reliable sources as noted above. And you did so in blatant violation of your own 1RR restriction which was the basis for your unblock in February (after four other blocks for edit warring). Helper214 (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After you altered your post again I have to clarify. You now claim you gave "specific edit summaries citing policy". What you did was give dishonest edit summaries. Here you revert claiming "Unsourced - reverting per BLP and RS policy." yet what you are reverting gave a source of Yahoo news. That is not unsourced. Here you gave an identical edit summary even though in that edit a reference for NY Daily News was given. Once again, that is not unsourced. What you did was edit war and then after the fact you backpedaled and claimed the sources which you initially claimed didn't exist were in fact just unreliable (even though that also is untrue). And again, all of this in violation of your own 1RR restriction. Helper214 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not under a 1RR restriction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain why you agreeing to a 1RR restriction was the basis for being unblocked for your fifth edit warring block. Helper214 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not interested in arguing about this further" I bet not! Why is it in your view that the above news sources cited by @Helper214 which are used all over wikipedia in blp articles and non-blp articles are not reliable enough in your view to be cited at this article? You do not get to unilaterally decide which news source may be used. The disruption and edit warring by you winkelvi is quite amazing to see. The top of it all is that you have deemed even Variety in not a reliable source! You should really read over WP:OWN. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Helper214's post just above. You can try and hide behind blp policy when you were being, disruptive, dishonest, and edit warring all at the same time. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not blocked The only reason why I'm not handing out blocks is that they're supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The death is confirmed and the edit warring has stopped. Lorisuzanne33, please read our policy on edit warring carefully - it'll save you from getting into trouble in the future. Winkelvi, you were much more closer to being blocked. You need to pay much more attention to "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If you are saying that sources like Hollywood Reporter are not reliable for this purpose, you need to be able to point to past community discussions determining this. NeilN talk to me 03:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:1008:B116:A43D:6825:1E94:978E:CE05 reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2600:1008:B116:A43D:6825:1E94:978E:CE05 (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. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]

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

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

    Comments:

    User keeps removing content without explanation, and I warned this user. DPH1110 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

    I have requested temporary semi protection for the page as the vandalism seems to be coming exclusively from IP users. Dane2007 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi reported by User:107.77.192.138 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Noel Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Winkelvi (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. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]
    6. [45]
    7. [46]
    8. [47]
    9. [48]
    10. [49]
    11. [50]
    12. [51]
    13. [52]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    The user in question has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and making a dozen reverts in one day to one article is so blatant it can't go unpunished. Of his last 250 edits overall, at least 71 are reverts. He is also canvassing sysops to come to his defense [54] 107.77.192.138 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can understand being cautious about non-RS for the death report on a BLP, but [55] here and [56] removing an Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter reports and calling them not reliable is extremely disconcerting (and that's about 7 -12RR). This is a serious problem. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Already addressed above (here) in NeilN's close. Individual reporting is an IP-hopping 107.* troll who has been hounding and trying to make trouble for me for over a year. This report is just more of the same harassment and has been brought to NeilN's attention here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    I agree with @Masem this is serious problem with all of winkelvi edit warring. Even after NeilN lowered the protect I added the death info with three reliable reference. I is not one editors place to revert, revert, and revert to get his preferred version in the article. One example is tha winkelvi took out my reference to Variety because "he said" here, [57] Mind you there was already an ongoing discussion on the talk page for which source to use. I invited winklevi again to discuss at tlk page but he overuled me yet again. [58] Then here unlaterally removed another reference I had added unilaterally while a discussion was going on. That is not proper. A consensus may have been attained if not for all of winkelvis disruption and continuous reversions, and edit warring. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.93.54.101 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Rasul Mirzaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    174.93.54.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Please provide citation for "racial" motivation of fight or else remove mention of ethnicities."
    2. 09:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Since when is Wikipedia a bullshit propaganda site? Neither Mirzaev nor family of Agafonov have mentioned any racial underdone, it is the USA, where blacks and other minorities are killed due to race."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) to 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      1. 03:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rasul Mirzaev. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:Peterl reported by User:HalcyonHaylon (Result: Semi)

    Page: G12 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Peterl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link permitted

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Comments:
    User has continuously reverted removal of biased content and links on the page with regards to the "Concerns" section and the "Personal Experiences" sub-section. This is not neutral material and puts forward opinionated text in the Wikipedia entry.

    HalcyonHaylon (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Slicape (Result: )

    Page: Peter Joseph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60] added "political" activist.
    2. [61] added political activism of occupy
    3. [62] again added political activism to intro
    4. [63] then change something else without consensus this was reverted a bit by another user [64] and it was fixed
    5. [65] this time he changed something else without getting consensus.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] he reverted my 3 revert warning which I gave him on this third revert and called it harassment which is uncivil [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] yes I tried to resolve it but he kept on testing waters on different text each time after failing in consensus

    Comments:
    I have tried to resolve the dispute on talkpage within wikipedia rules. Earl King Jr. failed to get consensus. Each time he changed a different bit of text to make the article into political natural without sources. I said this on talk that he was inferring something sources were not saying and making it WP:SYNTH. He discarded my warning not to break rules when he reached 3 reverts and called it harassment which is uncivil. He did not get consensus for more edits. His edits got reverted so he amended a meagerly different part of the article. He has violated 3RR rule mentioned as: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

    He has stopped replying on talkpage and even when he was replying, he was reverting along and along. He has made 5 reverts in 24 hours first 3 reverts are breaking rules of biographies of living people because he used WP:SYNTH. He is deeply involved in editing The Zeitgeist Movement not the first time he is breaking rules [69], a movement related to Peter Joseph, and also breaking edit war rules slowly over there [70]. He should be blocked from wikipedia to enforce rules he is breaking by changing different part of text each time for similar opinion. --Slicape (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Strange series of events. ((talk)User:Slicape) now reporting edit warring creates an account a few days ago that appears to be single purpose Slicape which is stidently pro a certain subject. Then gets excited about ordinary editing and brings non existent violations to this board. Several days before this series of events another very adamant pro Zeitgeist/Peter Joseph editor is barred from editing, blocked for a year [71]. No idea whether this is the same person but it sounds like the same person in style and substance [72]. It is a stretch to assume a real new user is going to jump onto a board like this from starting an account a few days ago. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you going on about? I never edited Zeitgeist movement. My edits on Peter Joseph are NOT EVEN about this movement, they are only about the bio. Just because I am a new user does not mean I dont know how to use the search option to find where to report some one breaking rules and it does not mean I never heard of wikipedia before. You can keep on making assumptions, will this justify your breaking of 3 revert rule? I dont think so. Sandbox was created automatically with all that do not edit below this line when I accessed and saved it. I did not write a single word in it. Each time you think some one is not sharing your options, are you going to use an excuse that only you believe in to break wikipedia rules? Real nice. You are making poor excuses to justify a petty revert that he was a "political" activist vs he was not a political activist with nothing to do with your deeply involved dispute where YOU are involved, not me. I was just passing by and you engaged me. Not cool to revert every edit on a wikipedia article you are involved in. You have reverted 5 times in a day. I request administrators of this board to take action on that because I AM discussing on talkpage, he is NOT fully participating and also reverting each time. Slicape (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: )

    Page: Irregular chess opening (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MaxBrowne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I think there may well be objectivity issues here. The article is largely based on Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings but user seems to want to remove citations to this. Talk page comments display WP:BATTLEGROUND, e.g. [73]. I am a loss on how to respond really. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Irregular chess opening#Definition

    Comments:

    Clearly the user has not attempted to resolve the matter on the talk page of the article in question as he has made no edits to the talk page in several days. He has however templated me, then gone ahead with this complaint even though I made no reverts after that. At no point did he attempt to resolve the issue on the article talk page, or on the WikiProject Chess talk page where various issues with the article were also being discussed. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you WP:BATTLEGROUND with everyone? Links from your talk page: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. Why do you insist on this style of editing? There's no logic to it that I can see. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see [83], which I feel speaks volumes. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs provided are of course irrelevant to the present discussion, and amount to nothing more than an ad hominem argument. Please stay focused. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not involved in this dispute but from my viewpoint there has been a misunderstanding regarding references' convention, also bringing in Wikipolicy (overciting). The link being added doesn't provide any support to the text and is an unnecessary addition, not to mention being a link to a webshop, thereby bringing in spam. I think this has been elevated far too quickly. I don't believe MaxBrowne should be facing any action from this. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    But you see the story keeps changing? That's what's so exasperating. Also 3 reversions in 24 hours is against policy. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rockypedia reported by User:CFredkin (Result: )

    Page: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rockypedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [84]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [85]
    2. [86]
    3. [87]

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [88]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

    Comments:

    Discretionary sanctions are currently in effect on this article with a 1RR rule. The editor was warned by a 3rd editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and acknowledged them before the 1RR violation occurred.CFredkin (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response: The first edit cited above was the Sarah Bard quote. It's unrelated to the other two edits. CFredkin including that is an attempt manufacture a more-impressive list of edits.
    The second edit cited above was a restoration of a connection between a Trump tweet and the white supremacist forum that it came from, despite it being well-sourced. CFredkin made a blatant attempt to erase that connection, and made that edit unilaterally while a discussion of the section in question was still ongoing.
    The third edit cited above was a re-ordering of the information that was already in the paragraph, after a rewrite of the section by MelanieN. I mistakenly didn't remove it from the end of the paragraph, as I had not noticed it there. MelanieN agreed with my re-ordering, as seen here.
    I would additionally submit that after CFredkin posted to my talk page threatening me with sanctions, he did not reply to my response. I would also like to point out that he deleted his many conflicts and discussions of edit wars with other editors from his talk page with this edit, and this edit, and this edit and this edit, and this edit, and that's just from the first page of his user talk page history.
    In short, my edits were in the interest of improving the page, and did not violate 1RR. CFredkin is here to push a biased point of view in every single article he edits, and is attempting to intimidate me into not restoring content that he feels portrays Donald Trump negatively. Rockypedia (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All the diffs provided above meet the definition of reversion at WP:3rr, also the warning by the 3rd editor (referenced above) specifically called out that the sanctions require firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).CFredkin (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's total falsehood. I'm the one who challenged your edit; specifically, the removal of the Trump tweet connection to the white supremacists' meme. If you reverted that edit, then and only then would 1RR be violated. You've instead chosen to try to get the material stricken via this noticeboard rather than discussion and consensus on the talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll also note that the contentious content remains in the article in violation of the terms of the sanctions, despite Rockypedia having been given the opportunity to self-rv prior to this complaint being filed.CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is again a mischaracterization of the situation. I did not add the content that you've objected to. You removed it, and I added it back in, and then provided another reliable source. Since you knew you couldn't delete it again without triggering sanctions against yourself, you chose to manufacture an accusation of a violation here. Given your extensive experience with edit warring, with others, it's clear what you're trying to accomplish here. Rockypedia (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As an observer to this process: I was the one who warned Rockypedia, and I personally do not feel that the links here constitute a violation of 1RR. Here is my analysis:

    • The first link: I don't know why CFredkin chose to combine three edits into that link, because the edit in question is this single link [90], where Rockypedia restored a sentence that I had deleted. That was the cause of my warning to him, which he acknowledged and has IMO has respected.
    • The second link is unrelated to the first. Again, CFredkin has combined several edits in this one link; the edit in question should be this one [91]. In it, Rockypedia reverted some changes by CFredkin and restored an earlier version. The change involves where in the paragraph to place the information about the source of the image. I should add that CFredkin did not attempt to discuss his change before making it.
    • The third link, again, confusingly combines three edits but presumably refers to this edit [92], where he restored some information that he mistakenly thought had been deleted from the article (it was actually just in a different place in the article). --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll also note that Rockypedia hasn't even acknowledged that he violated 1rr. My understanding is that there's a bright line regarding violation of 3rr (or 1rr in this case). If that's not the case, let's say so and everyone can act accordingly.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't acknowledged it because I haven't violated 1rr. I don't really make a habit of trying to accuse people of things they haven't done, and so I don't know the protocol for such an instance, but I would hope that there's some punishment for your completely unfounded insinuations - it appears that your previous one week block for sockpuppetry didn't dissuade you from bad behavior in the future. Nevertheless, I assure you that your bullying tactics won't be effective here. Rockypedia (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    After further discussion offline with MelanieN, I agree that there are probably extenuating circumstances here. I'm not sure what the procedure is for this, but I'd like to withdraw this complaint.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:87.254.76.130 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Serial ATA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    87.254.76.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666780 by Clpo13 (talk) Please stop wasting everyone's time."
    2. 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666629 by Clpo13 (talk) You've been asked to take this to the talk page!"
    3. 20:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728666472 by Clpo13 (talk) Consensus is reached on the talk page. Please do not engage in edit warring."
    4. 20:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Revert pointless changes. Please discuss on the talk page."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Serial ATA. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor appears to believe any edit they don't like is "pointless", even when such edits fix dead links. clpo13(talk) 20:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, is it wrong to revert things for an otherwise unstated reason, refuse to yourself add it to the talk page, and then demanding that the second party justify themselves claiming that they are an impediment to Wikipedia? 87.254.76.130 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw constructive edits reverted for no good reason. If you don't want to be mistaken for a WP:VANDAL, then you shouldn't act like one. clpo13(talk) 20:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And will you be looking to enforce this viewpoint on other users, excluding me? 87.254.76.130 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear I am just following the example set for me. 87.254.76.130 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the IP's history on Serial ATA and comments like this, I suspect they're merely reverting any edit made by Dsimic regardless of what changes were made. clpo13(talk) 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – 2 days. It's hard to criticize the other party for not using the talk page when you are not using it yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xboxmanwar reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )

    Page: Kodak Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [93]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [94]
    2. [95]
    3. [96]
    4. [97]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

    Comments: I've tried to work collaboratively with this editor, but his edit summaries such as this and this set a negative tone. I've left detailed messages on the article's talk page and on User:Xboxmanwars talk page, and have patiently tried to improve the article and incorporate his suggestions. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported user comments: I do not understand why he reporting me now, or even reporting me in the first place, all I tried to do is to place a Billboard chart on the article, but this editor always condemns my edits, like he is restricting it, he is always monitoring the Kodak Black article, and a lot of the edits other editors add to contribute, this editor goes out and undo them. He says here if you read through it, that the chart is "fairly useless", which clearly it is not, and I have proof on that talk page to back up my claim, I think that this user does not know how to write articles correctly, since he blatantly removes edits with no hesitation, but that is my personal opinion, and there is another editor on that same talk page that made earlier comments about how this editor is making inappropriate edits, so again I am still confused to why this editor has reported me since I haven't done anything wrong, just a regular editor trying to improve the article. Thank you for your understanding. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:100C:B004:8099:8C28:8344:2873:5D6E reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: )

    Page
    Modbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2600:100C:B004:8099:8C28:8344:2873:5D6E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "You began this war with removing valid links that have been here for years. Where have you been for years, not here.st
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Modbus. (WT)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:67.85.35.183 reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: )

    Page
    List of founders of religious traditions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    67.85.35.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "Check the talk page, I feel like I've made my case, if not, just undo this and I will happily discuss ways to better suit this issue. But for now…"
    2. 00:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "I already cleared it with outside parties, this is the most historically accurate entity we can possibly put towards this at this point in time. This is fine, FOR NOW. We'll see going forward whether or not this is enough."
    3. 23:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Re-adding the Numa Pompilius link that was removed for some reason."
    4. 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "You keep reverting the Jewish Christianity fix."
    5. 19:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728656139 by 186.79.194.90 (talk) Historicity and plus the user you are continually undoing has added actually useful information that you are constantly erasing."
    6. 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728655649 by 186.79.194.90 (talk)"
    7. 19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC) "IP undid an edit that reverted his vandalism, undoing that"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/* July 2016 */ add"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 00:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) "/*Abraham is only a myth*/ can't do it"
    Comments:

    See IP's contribs for history of edit warring. First added it on 22 June and after being reverted, has been edit warring since. Has joined the talk finally but still doesn't get WP:TALKDONTREVERT Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=728730917"