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 BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 20:35, 3 July 2014 (→User:Nikkimaria reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Declined): good news). 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:Sepsis II reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]


    This is an article subject to 1RR

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

    Comments:

    I've given the user the option to revert herself. She declined.

    I made a faulty complaint late last night (Kipa made two quick edits, the first reverted, I opened the same diff twice which made me think it was two reverts in breach of 1RR, we all know I was wrong). Seeing as this account is well aware this in not a breach of 1RR but filled anyways I would suggest a block for being pointy/disruptive/battleground mentality. Sepsis II (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add that Sepsis II removed two WP:ARE warnings on his talk page, which he is not entitled to do. Besides, in return for respectful talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and lots of patience, he always responds with reverts, silence, reverts, disruptive editing, and occasional personal attacks on edit summaries and talk pages. In my opinion, this extremely POV user should have been blocked or topic banned long time ago.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OH NOES!!! I deleted your precious message off my talk page! I should be arrested at once! I need an anti-static strap, socks keep sticking to me (I'll be filing an SPI in a minute). Sepsis II (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you keep accusing other users of sockpuppetry without evidence, also breaking basic civility rules. Only for this you should be blocked. You already filled SPI against me, but you didn't provide any convincing proof. Keep in mind that Sean.hoyland, a respected editor with much more experience and intelligence than you, was blocked exactly for doing that. I suggest you to learn from his experience instead of being so arrogant and aggressive.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have so far encountered Sepsis II on several occasions, dealing with similar behavior of his involving harsh edit-warring, inability to follow community consensus and highly uncivil approach to other editors, often accusing others on sockpuppetry and canvassing, and rarely supplying any evidence - there have been perhaps 10 cases filed by Sepsis II in the last few weeks, making his ARBPIA complaints into a weird kind of "sports". I would like to emphasize that recently (21 April) it was specifically pointed out by administrator Sandstein that "Sepsis II engages in the inappropriate casting of aspersions by alleging sockpuppetry without any evidence" and that regarding Sepsis II and Plot Spoiler, it was added by the administrator that Sepsis II is a single topic editor and "On this basis, I favor a lengthy topic ban for both editors, with the instruction that, after the topic ban ends, they must edit in this topic area in such a manner that an outside observer would not be able to tell from their article-space edits which if any side of the conflict they favor". I doubt that think single topic editors, who are so deeply emotionally involved in the topic are helping to make wikipedia better.GreyShark (dibra) 21:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of ideological editors here on wikipedia hate me. Sepsis II (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How could it be edit warring, I have no clue how many years ago an editor wrote the wrong number there. Who could I edit war with? I don't know.
    I let stand the poor edits made by Amir and Kipa per 1RR, (they were of course in the end properly reverted by another editor). I'm careful with 1RR, if I thought it was a revert (and if I had remembered that I had made a single edit to the page 21 hours ago (A day ago in human terms), I wouldn't have made the correction. Sepsis II (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sepsis II, that's not a good answer. Anytime you make a change to an article, you should assume that it's probably a revert. Someone, sometime put in the information you changed. The only exception is when you make a brand new addition (never been added before). There are, of course, changes that are in an administrator's discretion to overlook, but those are usually minor and insubstantial. Changing 80% to 87% is hardly minor. And although it's not strictly relevant to edit warring, the cited source seemed to me to support 80%, not 87%, but I'm hardly an expert in these matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23, nothing personal but what you have done there is collaborate with an obvious sockpuppet/advocate who should be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK. And yes, just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind. It will serve as another example of admins collaborating with sockpuppets in ARBPIA through poor judgment when they should have the experience and common sense to know better.

    • Who is the sockmaster in Kipa Aduma, Esq's case ? It doesn't matter and filing an SPI report won't help if the sockmaster knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the cost to the community of trying to figure out the sockmaster and processing a request at SPI far outweighs the near-zero benefit derived from blocking an account as a result of an SPI report when the person can and will simply create another account. Obvious socks should be blocked on sight at zero cost to the community by admins using their judgment.
    • This is something like the 3rd time I've seen experienced and reasonable admins effectively collaborating with sockpuppets in recent weeks. A pattern is emerging. It sends a message to the community that admins lack the competence and common sense to provide adequate protection for the topic area and its editors.

    Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Bbb23: I don't know what can be done, but the sock situation is out of control and established editors on the other side are being purposely harassed with nonsense. No one can identify the sock master because there are dozens of candidates. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Der Grammarkönnig and User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Grammarkönig blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Split infinitive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Der Grammarkönnig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Curly Turkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: DG

    CT

    DG

    CT

    DG

    CT

    DG

    CT

    DG


    [6] [7]

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

    Comments: User: Der Grammarkönnig is already blocked. User:Curly Turkey, who reported this at WP:ANI, was also edit warring and needs a warning. If the edit warring resumes, page may need protection for two days. Really more appropriate for here than at ANI, since purely an edit war.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Grammarkönnig already blocked. The reaction from CurlyTurkey wasn't great, but I would tend to consider at least the material reverted the first three times to have been so blatantly and self-evidently unacceptable that I would be extremely reluctant to apply sanctions against them here. Seriously, should we get rid of involuntarily the freedom to correct obvious glaring errors? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has made it clear they have no sources and have no intention of ceasing to push their POV, including removing sourced material without even bothering to explain why in an edit comment. Context is everything, Robert McClenon, and if you're going to split hairs over the letter of policy you should ensure that you follow the letter of those policies yourself—as in the big red notice at the top of the page: You must notify any user you report. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.4.93.100 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Both IPs blocked)

    Pages
    Oona King, Baroness King of Bow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Jerry Dammers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Kevin Rowland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
    Users being reported
    64.4.93.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.211.113.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:BLP WP:NOT"
    2. 20:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
    3. 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
    4. 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
    5. 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
    6. 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC) "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"

    (see above page links for more)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (First IP)
    2. 20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (Second IP)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. "Not Wikiquote"
    2. Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments:

    85.211.113.180 (talk · contribs) is stalking me and undoing my edits for no good reason. They have continued to re-add unsourced and unencyclopedic content to this WP:BLP and others as well. They should be blocked instead. They have also used 85.210.106.160 (talk · contribs) to stalk me and possibly others too. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wish to report other users here, then you may also do so. I will check on other 3rr violations by other user after I finish this post. In the meantime, I have found a multitude of edir warring/3rr violations on several pages by this IP and others. BenYes? 20:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the other IP is stalking me and restoring inappropriate content for no reason on many BLP articles. They are continuing to do so even now, including on the article you reported. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both IPs' activities are not limited to one page, and are in fact spread across multiple (example). Recommend both be blocked. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It's not my fault they are stalking me and restoring bad content on BLP articles. They are also removing sources and doing other bad edits [8]. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's just establish something. "Stalking" is not a technical violation. Anyone on the internet can see any contributions that you made to any page on Wikipedia. That's what I did to find all the pages on which there was an edit war between the two parties. The "right" party (as you claim yourself to be) is just as wrong as the "wrong" party when there is a question of a WP:3RR violation, except in cases of vandalism, about which you did not inform the other IPs. You also made no attempt on any article talk page to resolve the dispute, hence the empty sub-section above. BenYes? 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalking like they do IS a technical violation WP:WIKISTALKING. Also BLP is a WP:3RR exemption, plus this edit [9] is vandalism and you don't HAVE to inform him. What article talk page? They don't give any reason to undo my edits, I give them policies that explain what doesn't go on Wikipedia. If they don't give anything to discuss but still make bad edits what can I do? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes it is a violation for the disruptive behavior, but it would not ordinarily be. The quotations look sourced to me. BenYes? 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [10], you saw above my edit-summary WP:BLP WP:NOT Wp:QUOTE because there is a citation needed tag so WP:BLP and the quotation belongs on Wikiquote so WP:NOT WP:QUOTE. But then the other IP re-adds the content without a citation [11] and you report me for removing it. I have found the article talk so I can discuss what doesn't belong on Wikipedia but the other IP gives no reason for edits, just "undo, undo, undo" stalking me so what can I do about that? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with 64.4.93.100 on this one. While edit warring is never a good solution to solving any dispute, I think the removal of the miscellaneous quotes section is justified as per WP:QUOTE and the other IP should have tried to resolve things on a talk page, like 64.4.93.100 tried to, instead of continually reverting. There was hardly any communication from the other IP. I just think both anon editors need to cool down and get consensus from other people before making any further edits there. I do however agree with Velella, and think that 64.4.93.100 needs to consider how much information is being lost when bulldozing down every single quote they find, and be a bit more careful in the future. Just my two cents -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have also had a run-in with this IP's editing where a perfectly sound quotation which added value and understanding to an article was removed. In the end I had to spend some time embedding the quote in the article to persuade the IP to leave it alone - work that she/he could have more profitably done rather than simply going for a mass deletion policy. I suspect that some of this may stem from a belief that WP:QUOTE is a rigid policy. It isn't. It is a guideline to assist editors and should be interpreted with care and discretion to retain value and depth of coverage in Wikipedia article. I despair when I see some very useful information being lost, even though much of the pruning may be justified.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We're having a little chat about it here. 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree with the comments of Velella above. I too have had a run-in with this IP's editing on the Ann Druyan article. Several important quotes were deleted twice with no proper explanation, except for WP:QUOTE. This unregistered IP seems to be on a mass deletion policy, without any thought of the result of a mass of information lost. I fear that this vandalism will take a long time to put right. David J Johnson (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both IPs blocked three days for edit warring. Consider getting talk page consensus about the quotes. Mass addition or mass removal of quotes is likely to be considered disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.87.81.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: IP blocked)

    Page
    List of Grojband episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    66.87.81.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) to 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      1. 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
      2. 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
    2. 19:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 20:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    7. 20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    8. 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    9. 20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    10. 20:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
    2. 19:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
    3. 19:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
    4. 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This is getting tiresome. AIV is being slow Also see User_talk:EvergreenFir#List_of_Grojband_episodes EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked 66.87.81.15 (talk · contribs) for one hour and asked him to reply to your talk page. Let's see what happens after that. Please don't keep reverting - is it really so important that the IP's version isn't allowed to be there for a short while? It isn't 100% obvious vandalism (unless/until we can show that it's a known vandal/sock).  —SMALLJIM  21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both warned)

    Page
    1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615022057 by Uishaki (talk) totally unnecessary"
    2. 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615038154 by Walter Görlitz (talk) why? what's so good about the template?"
    3. 19:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615045546 by Walter Görlitz (talk) there is absolutely no need to ever edit these tables ever again, so again, what is the benefit of the templates?"
    4. 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615063437 by Walter Görlitz (talk) stop it now, dude"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Seasoned editor who knew that he was violating 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was abiding by WP:BRD. User:Uishaki was bold, I reverted, and no one ever made any attempt to discuss the issue in good faith except me (although I admit I should have done that on the article talk page rather than via edit summaries). Intentionally or otherwise, Walter Gorlitz misinterpreted my concerns and was, in fact, the instigator of this edit war. My feeling is that he deliberately goaded me into this situation and I respectfully request an apology. – PeeJay 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert, revert, revert and attitude you always have, goes against the "discuss" element you claim. I’m sorry. if you were in discuss mode, I didn't see it on the article talk page or mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biruitorul reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: No violation)

    Page: Ferdinand I of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    [12]

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

    [13]

    "Deleting Repeatedly Large Block of Text that is Abundantly and Verifiably Sourced - Probable reason: simply being critical of historical figures"

    Still waiting the reply after my objection (to deleting text heavily sourced) expressed on the user page User_talk:Biruitorul (Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    As in the equivalent article in Romanian language, many Romanian users still feel very uncomfortable with Wikipedia articles containing in addition to some flattering (if frequently unsourced) descriptions, also the sourced critique of national historical figures as it appears in the more objective Western academic historiography:

    Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt (Result: Protected)

    Hi, there is currently an edit war going on at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt, I am not naming anyone because I am NOT getting involved. I have been blocked for edit warring my self in the past but have since changed my ways, I am merely letting it known because something should be done. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody? Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 5 days. Protection may be lifted if consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MJJFFF reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: Two weeks)

    Page
    Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MJJFFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
      2. 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
      3. 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ Editing the content"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ This is political information and needs to be removed. This is a biographical page ONLY"
      2. 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Publications */ This is the original content. I've removed the inserted content"
    3. 01:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Just placing the original content back into the Wikipedia profile"
    4. 01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Removed irrelevant information and keeping paragraph as was in original form."
    5. 00:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Views on the Wind Industry */ This content is"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Angus Taylor (politician). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* This continuous edit-warring has got to stop */"
    Comments:
    • The edit warring on this article is ridiculous, and while neither MJJFFF or the pro-wind energy editors have been terribly helpful in working towards consensus, at least the other side shows up on the talk page. MJJFFF has been previously blocked for 3RR, and doesn't respond to any talk page discussions, either on his own talk page or the article talk page. He's still blindly conducting revert wars and it's getting tiresome to say the least. Also, to make things clear: while I've reverted him in this instance of removing information, I'm not part of the broader edit war on this article besides trying to whack both sides heads together and get them to talk to one another. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct - I am user MJJFFF and I say that the edit warring is ridiculous. This is a biographical page, NOT a political page. I am simply editing the content and restoring the information to it's original form. Please refrain from editing the page further. Take note of other similar pages, and you will see that they are kept to a biographical form only. Please refrain from making further political insertions into a page that is biographical only — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honey, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "original form" that editors have to "refrain from editing further", and most articles on politicians contain some information about their views where this is notable. You need to discuss these things on the talk page instead of consistently reverting. You also seem to have some fairly significant misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works, but this is something that again, could be solved if you actually used the article talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    MJJFFF, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, and as such any article on a politician is going to include political content. And furthermore, the 'original form' of an article has no special status - any edits need to be considered on their merits, and cannot be reverted simply because they weren't in an earlier version. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines before you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, I suggest that MMJJFF read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Dwpaul Talk 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has two hard line editors, each welded to some particular point. Minor points, in my view, and I really wish that there could be some give and take, some meeting of minds. I'm concerned that any blocks handed out - and well-deserved blocks - are just going to amount to a temporary ceasefire, with hostilities resuming as soon as the clock ticks over. I don't think that there's any real solution beyond a willingness by both ends to listen to the middle, because neither is going to get all they want here.

    Thanks to DW for her efforts at diplomacy and mediation. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:DaveSmythe (Result: Reporter blocked as sock)

    Page: Talk:Franz Boas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AndyTheGrump (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. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    4. [17]

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

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

    Comments:


    This is self-evidently a sock of the banned antisemitic former contributor User:Mikemikev. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisP2K5 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) to 03:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      1. 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
      2. 03:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Hallmarks */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Loren Bouchard is the creator of the show. I'll take his word over yours any day of the week. reverted to my edit."
      2. 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Characters */"
    3. 04:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615105170 by EvergreenFirAgain, Loren Bouchard said directly the show is not set in any particular place. Unless you can find me an RS that states he said otherwise, your edit is OR and invalid."
    4. 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615111211 by EvergreenFir (talk)stop making unconstructive edits."
    5. 05:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Loren Bouchard said it does not take place in any particular area. Your sources are not reliable."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
    2. 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
    2. 05:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
    3. 05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
    4. 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Location */"
    Comments:

    User has a history of this behavior. Refuses to discuss changes despite previous local consensus. Only argument is "I am right and my source is the only one". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the argument is whether or not the show is set anywhere and I have cited this interview series creator Loren Bouchard gave to Entertainment Weekly as proof that EvergreenFir's position is incorrect. The exact quote that invalidates the theory that the show takes place in New Jersey: "It’s a semi-Springfield. It can’t be San Francisco, which is what many people think. It has all that Victorian architecture from San Francisco because I was living there when we developed the show, but we set it firmly in the Northeast because of the way Linda sounds, and Teddy. There’s just so much East Coast in those voices, we just couldn’t take it out. It would’ve been too weird to have her doing that voice — you’d have to constantly be explaining that she’s a transplant or whatever. And because it’s this seaside, past-it’s-prime, dusty old town, we kind of felt like that puts it pretty close to those Coney Island, New York-New Jersey shore parts. I grew up in the New England area, and there were lots of beach towns like it, though we don’t want to be in New England party because Family Guy has Rhode Island sewn up. But basically I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs or on the northern Jersey shore.” As far as I'm concerned, that makes the case pretty open and shut: the word of the show creator vs. three questionable sources, one of which is the episode itself (which if I remember correctly is not automatically an RS). I don't see what the big deal is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to note this editor has reported me to AIV under the same circumstances, and stress again that his sources are largely non-RS and that my source is an RS and contradicts all three of his sources- and since it is an RS, it is therefore not vandalism. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a funny place - why would Evergreen Fir block anyone for war when they .....

    1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=614967742&oldid=614967484 Revision as of 03:53, 30 June 2014 EvergreenFir (Undid revision 614967311 by ChrisP2K5 (talk) it's clearly NJ.)

    2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615100719 - Revision as of 03:37, 1 July 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank) EvergreenFir (Reverted 2 edits by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

    3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615110400 Revision as of 05:00, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

    4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615111308 Revision as of 05:02, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

    Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I realized my error and self-reverted to ChrisP2K5's version why this plays out. I should have reported sooner but was treating this as vandalism (hence my report on AIV) and not edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, I did not report the extra revert fifth war removal you took down yourself - only the four you did not take down. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    5 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=615112166&oldid=615112033 Revision as of 05:11, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

    Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted in the edit reason, I self-reverted while this plays out. I am unaware of how to get Twinkle to transfer edit info without reverting. My edits are in good faith. Note I also tried to engage the edit warrior in discussion multiple times. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So are ChrisP2K5 edits in good faith - do please stop referring to him as an edit warrior when you are an edit warrior also - Chris has as much talkpage efforts at chat as you - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob%27s_Burgers&action=history - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mosfetfaser Only after violating warnings. Made no effort to discussion before templating. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What templating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChrisP2K5 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Me templating the user on their talk page after initiating discussion. As I said already, their only discussion was to say they are right and it's not edit warring if they are right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - you User:EvergreenFir are the only templater - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisP2K5&diff=prev&oldid=615111247 - Chris never templeted you even once - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yes... that's how it works usually. I fail to see the issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you were warring and wanted another writer banned for warring - hello - Mosfetfaser (talk)
    Which is exactly why I initiated discussion on two talk pages first. Makes sense. Good night. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EvergreenFir Your attempts at discussion in all this are no more that Chris's - you were warring your position, plain and simple - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, timing and intent. Good night for reals. Way past my bedtime of 2AM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "timing and intent" are no excuse for your warring - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that it is the reporter being engaged in the edit war and the unconstructive editing. Especially when he says "it's clearly NJ" when the man who created and developed the series said otherwise. Even if you consider the episode as an RS, there still is no clear indication that the show is set in New Jersey because the car scene (which I have to believe he's citing) just shows the car starting from some point in the New York metro area. How can you decipher it as New Jersey when the car is touching Long Island and southern Connecticut, not to mention eastern Pennsylvania as well? I think it lends to the ambiguity of the setting as well and refutes his argument further. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I offer 3 sources more current than the one you offer. You offer no newer sources and continue to revert despite consensus for its inclusion. You claim you are not in the wrong because you're right (which I disagree with), but you still edit war and initiated the edit war. Your first edit was itself a revert to old wording (see here). You claim, without backing or discussion, that an old interview with the show's creator trumps the reality of the show, more current episodes, and more current sources. I will again point to the fact that you have a very very long history of this behavior (which I wish I had noticed earlier and would not have treated you as a vandal, though your behaviors are unconstructive, as I mentioned above). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I point, again, to what the creator of the show has clearly put on the record. And his exact words, which are posted here and on the talk page of the article, state that the show is not set in any particular state. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I discussed it appears to have changed. But it would have been nice if you started discussion after your first edit or 2. I am done making my case here and done defending myself from boomerang. I did my best to engage you in conversation on your talk page and the article's talk page. You refused until the last two edits after violating 3RR and 4im. This is no longer about your source's quality, it's about your actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    it is also about your action User:EvergreenFir and you have been at war also as the links above clearly show - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't an edit war. This was you (EvergreenFir) disregarding a sourced edit that clearly contradicted your position, that came from the source of the show itself, and that has not been refuted by him. There wasn't anything to discuss, your information was not correct no matter how current it was. And no matter how many times you bring up my past edit history or claim I did something wrong, it doesn't change that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to note on the talk page, EvergreenFir is continuing to assail my position and accusing me of having a crystal ball mentality and not letting his edit stand because I don't like it. This leads me to believe that he will continue his disruptive editing and not allow the word of the show's creator to be the definitive answer as to where the show is set. It would be like someone submitting their own opinion to where Springfield is as fact despite Matt Groening having made it ambiguous. I mean, Loren Bouchard said it's ambiguous. What more is there to say?? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Article protected five days, on the last version prior to the edit war. The alternative would have been to block both participants. Two parties who are each 110% confident that they are right is the usual recipe for an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:101.0.94.153 (Result: No action)

    Page: Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] (Removed by the user here: [25])

    Comments:

    A few days ago I started a request for comment to resolve a content dispute on this article. I included a separate section for uninvolved editors to comment, which I understand is standard in a RFC. (See this earlier RFC on the same article.) After the first uninvolved editor commented, disagreeing with TheRedPenOfDoom, TheRedPenOfDoom removed this section heading so that his own comments would be in the same section as those from the uninvolved editors. His reverts have not been all identical, but they all have the same effect of erasing the distinction between involved an uninvolved editors in the RFC. (Despite classifying himself as an "outsider", TheRedPenOfDoom is one of the original parties in the dispute, as can be seen in the article's edit history.)

    Also note that his edit summaries notwithstanding, I have not actually altered his comments. He has altered mine, however, by changing/removing the section headings that I added when creating the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.94.153 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 July 2014

    You appear to be refactoring in a way by moving TheRedPenOfDoom's comments to the section of your choice. Why did you not just reply saying that you felt they were not "uninvolved"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) While there does seem to be a bit of an edit war here, it seems to me there might be a bit of violation of the talk page guidelines here as well, all reverts were to restore the user's comment to where he originally placed it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like I wasn't the first to point this out either ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀
    Note: Notified user in accordance with policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: apart from his user talk where he immediately removed my comments, I tried to discuss this with him in my own user talk. [26] His only response there was that I can't make other editors follow divisions between involved and uninvolved, although I know this is done in RFCs all the time. In any case, his comments make it clear he doesn't care whether classifying himself as an "outsider" is inaccurate. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @101.0.94.153: This case is not so quite clear cut as there are violations of WP:TPO involved. If he is moving himself and labeling himself as a non-party, he is free to do so. Rather than move his comments, it is much better to just leave a note saying that he is in fact involved under that comment, but he has the right to place his comment where he wishes within guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a 3RR exception for a user's own userpage/comments, unless covered by other policies? Or am I imagining seeing that somewhere? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What talk page policy did I violate? In Wikipedia:REFACTOR, one of the legitimate types of refactoring is "Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion". Moving a comment by an involved editor so it isn't in the "comments by outsiders" section seems like it's an example of that. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a speedy close possible here? The whole issue of race and intelligence is under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBR&I) and an IP should not be using this page to report that they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to refactor another editor's comment or to impose certain RfC procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action against TheRedPenOfDoom. The temptation to block the IP-hopping submitter from 101.0.*.* is strong. If you read the entire page at WP:REFACTOR you'd surely notice "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SaudAlkhaldi reported by User:Shrike (Result: Indeffed for sockpuppetry)

    Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SaudAlkhaldi (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. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

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

    Comments:
    The artice under 1RR per WP:ARBPIA.The user is new so maybe a warning from admin will be enough.

    User:Notavulgarusername reported by User:Solarra (Result: Blocked reported user and IP)

    Page
    Hardcore punk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Notavulgarusername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 02:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 06:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    7. 07:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    8. 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    9. 10:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    10. 20:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    11. 00:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Two warnings for edit-warring, user continually removing sourced consensus content from target article. Non responsive to multiple editors, appears to be a single purpose account. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 02:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

    Page: Cornwall Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Unscintillating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37] referring to this
    4. [38]

    I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

    Comments:
    In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

    Which states:

    "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

    Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."

    He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

    Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit.  This was way too complicated, this needed discussion.  So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next".  Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR.  I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article.  I am not aware of any edit warring by either party.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN. Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours. He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v. Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden. After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here. And the rest of the additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor. But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.44.133.67 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Paul Keating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    190.44.133.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "No-one is prepared to explain in the article what was important about this speech. Peacock words don't suffice."
    2. 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615247064 by Timeshift9 (talk)"
    3. 05:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615251512 by MelbourneStar (talk) see talk"
    4. 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615252585 by MelbourneStar (talk) look again"
    5. 06:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "You are not entitled to make stuff up. There was no consensus for your preferred version. It's just infantile to try to lie that there was."
    6. 06:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615254183 by The Drover's Wife (talk) see talk"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 06:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC) to 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    8. 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615254577 by I am One of Many (talk) explained at length. dishonest edit summaries don't make you look good"
    9. 06:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615254840 by Babitaarora (talk) rv unexplained edit"
    10. 06:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Oooooh it's sourced, so we must include it! When did the intellectual standard of editors drop so low? See talk."
    11. 06:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615255322 by Solarra (talk) rv unexplained revert"
    12. 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615255665 by The Last Arietta see lengthy attempts to discuss on talk, if demented editors haven't already removed it"
    13. 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615255833 by MelbourneStar"
    14. 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615256141 by Solarra rv unexplained revert"
    15. 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615275365 by Alans1977"
    16. 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615280089 by Alans1977 see talk"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Paul Keating. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP has been asked to discuss their continuous removal of content and gain consensus; instead, they continue to remove content, edit war, despite no consensus to do so. Additionally, the IP in question continues to make personal attacks directed at editors:[39], [40] – despite an only warning not to do so (would report at AIV, but already on an AN board). —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And is removing warnings. Note, this user has been previously blocked for the exact same issue on the exact same article, but does not seem to care. See User talk:187.17.52.174 - it is the same user. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just coming here to make the same report. Previously blocked for 3RR and incivility, pays no heed to talk page warnings. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also filed a report, not realizing this was here. Previously blocked for 3RR. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And a 5th revert, 6th revert and 7th revert after this was posted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And continued removal of others' comments. [41], [42], and [43]. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Made the same report before I saw this one. This user has been at this before. Alans1977 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported as being a suspected Sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/190.44.133.67 Alans1977 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hmich176 reported by User:124.186.240.203 (Result: IP blocked)

    Page: Le cut inside man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).


    Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:


    Vandalism after final warning. Hard block on user and on talk page. Blatant abuse of talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I only reverted 3 times, not 4, just for clarification. --hmich176 08:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.186.240.203 reported by User:Rovine (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    User talk:124.186.240.203 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    124.186.240.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    2. 07:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615262910 by Backendgaming (talk)"
    3. 07:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    4. 08:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Nikkimaria reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Declined)

    Page: Gerald Garson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nikkimaria (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. [45] 15:27, 1 July 2014‎ -- info removed from refs
    2. [46] 11:36, 2 July 2014‎ -- info removed again
    3. [47] 11:45, 2 July 2014‎ -- info removed yet again
    4. [48] 11:51, 2 July 2014‎ -- info removed for 4th time in less than 24 hours

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

    This arise out of a discussion on User talk:Nikkimaria where I unsuccessfully pleaded with the editor not to remove info from incomplete references. The discussion was removed as "trolling".

    I set out to revert some of the damage done by this editor to other articles, by restoring the status quo ante, per WP:BRD. (The edits in between the diffs listed are those where I restored the info removed by Nikkimaria). Sadly, Nikkimaria has preferred to edit-war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. 1815 North Carolina hurricane -- removal of a see-also link with edit summary "mos, refs"
    2. Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan -- removal of a see-also link with edit summary "mos, doc"
    3. Charles J. Hynes -- removal of a whole cited para with edit summary "mos, refs, rm nn"
    In each case, Nikkimaria's response to the reversion of the removal was to repeatedly reinstate their edit without any further explanation until their 4th edit (on the 2 hurricane articles), and their 3rd edit on Charles J. Hynes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more closely, Nikkimaria also breached 3RR on 1815 North Carolina hurricane and Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan. Having finally got an explanation for those removals, I am persuaded that those changes to the hurricane articles were appropriate, but in both cases Nikkimaria repeated the same edit 4 times in less than 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More correctly, no one has breached 3RR on any of those articles. You would breach it if you were to revert again, but as you say you've accepted that my edits were correct, hopefully that won't be a problem.
    What is more concerning, though, is how this set of edit-wars arose. As you noted, you and I disagreed about the references on the article on James Balfour. You ultimately restored your preferred references and, though I disagreed, I left them alone. That should have been the end of the matter, but then you threatened to abuse your advanced permissions to revert good-faith improvements on the basis of the edit summary alone. I and another editor pointed out how utterly inappropriate that would be; having seen those responses, you nevertheless went ahead and reverted not "damage" but good-faith edits, most of which had nothing to do with the issue about which we disagreed.
    So I won't be breaching 3RR here even if you do, as I'm not interested in your efforts to use adminship and administrative processes as a weapon. I hope you reconsider your approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined. I don't see how blocking Nikkimaria for breaching WP:3RR on the Garson page is going to solve anything (yes, Nikki, you in fact breached 3RR), particularly because BHG is edit warring even though she carefully stops before the 4th revert. I'm certainly not going to block Nikki for improving an article just because she technically violated 3RR and BHG acknowledges that Nikki's edit was correct but she should have explained it better or BHG wouldn't have reverted. Did you put any thought into the revert, BHG? I also don't like Nikki calling BHG a troll; nor do I like BHG theatening to rollback Nikki's edits based on an edit summary alone. This is all an incredible waste of both of your skills as experienced editors, not to mention administrators, and certainly doesn't cast either of you in a favorable light. If you want to duke it out, then do it on a board like WP:AN, which is more equipped to evaluate complex issues than this board is. But my recommendation, fwiw, is to either stay away from each other or try to resolve things in the usual way, through dispute resolution. As BHG would say, over and out. And if this drags on much after my decline, I'll close it (just to give you advance warning), although another uninvolved administrator is welcome to say whatever they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did pout thought into the reverts. In the case of Garson, I was restoring information in refs which would assist in completing those references. Sadly, since my reverts did not stand, that info remains absent from the article. Why? Because Nikkmaria acts as a style-cop who enforces some pedantic interpretation of a referencing guideline, and is snidely dismissive of requests to either improve the refs or let the info stand. Sorry, Bbb23, but Nikkimaria's removal of referencing information from Gerald Garson does not improve that article.
        In the other cases, I found that relevant see-also links were being removed without any reason being given. In each case, I took the time to explain why I was reverting its removal.
        Removing material from articles is much easier than adding it, but if it is removed with an edit summary which clearly explains what was removed and why, it may be found if another editor looks at the revision history. I had not encountered Nikkimaria's drive-by removals of content until I saw the edit to an article I had created, but it is clear that this is a well-established pattern of editing by Nikkimaria. It has been challenged by other editors with no success, and I have been surprised by the number of thanks I have received for challenging it.
        This is not the appropriate venue to continue to this discussion ... but if Nikkimaria to continues to undermine content creation by systematically removing material from articles using cryptic 8-letter edit summaries rather than a good and clearly stated reason, then sooner or later it will end up at some dispute resolution channel.
        Over and out for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I spoke too soon. Nikkimaria's latest edit does trim the Google Books links, but also uses the info in those links to improve the refs by adding page numbers. So it's constructive and helpful edit, even tho the edit summary is still terse and cryptic.
          It took a ridiculous amount of drama to prod Nikkimaria into a change of approach, but thankfully we seem to have gotten at least part way there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, slap both your wrists: the two of you are BETTER than this and SMARTER than this. the panda ₯’ 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dmrwikiprof reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Daniel Amen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Dmrwikiprof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) to 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 11:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Publications */ Restoring Articles subsection removed without WP:Consensus."
      2. 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "/* SPECT scanning */ Removed incorrect material. While those numbers were in the Chancellor article, the source cited by the Chancellor article makes no reference to those numbers."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC) to 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "/* SPECT scanning */ This quote could be easily paraphrased into something much shorter. It is also repeats the same statements that are already in the article. This is undo repetition"
      2. 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "/* SPECT scanning */ If the quotes that GeorgeLouis proposed we add are original research and not needed, then this quote is most certainly unnecessary."
    3. 13:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "The references used in the article cited for this sentence do not contain the stated numbers."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Daniel Amen. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Sourced material removed */ new section"
    Comments:
    there are actually 4 participants involved in this edit war, with MrBill3 being one of the main people, Dmrwikiprof is also a main participant, but GeorgeLouis and Alexbrn are also involved. Only MrBill3 is talking on the article talk page. So perhaps all others should be asked to discuss it there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to the characterization of my editing of the article as edit warring. I have added sourced material to the article in response to a concern that a generalization in WP's voice was not accurately reflected in the sources. Of all my edits two undid other editors work, both were to restore previously existing content. One restored a reference and the other restored the generalization (summary paraphrase) after adding support and discussion on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? The first edit was made at 4:30 a.m. 1 July and the third edit was made at 6:31 a.m. 2 July. Isn't that more than 24 hours? Anyway, DMR hasn't made any edits recently, so maybe a warning is sufficient. We all jump the mark sometimes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thinking that a warning will do for this and a discussion will be more fruitful than a block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning would be duly noted. I will be sure to consult the talk page before continuing with multiple reversions in the future. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this an adequate resolution. I look forward to Dmrwikiprof's continued participation on WP, with an urging to engage on talk pages and base contention on policy and sources. This may be closed as far as I am concerned. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.86.101.218 reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: Ignored as user blocked for edit warring already)

    Page: John Prescott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 69.86.101.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]
    2. [51]
    3. [52]
    4. [53]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Comments:


    The edits involve non-WP:RS and writing stuff that is not even in the sources WP:SYN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Declined)

    Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikieditorpro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [55]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [56]
    2. [57]
    3. [58]
    4. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Comments:

    Repeated deletions (reverts) of the work of other editors work violating 1rr restrictions on Israel Palestine related topics in 2 consecutive 24 hour periods. Editor has been notified of the restrictions and sanctions under ARPBIA and previously blocked for edit warring IP related articles.[62] the account is essentially dormant, activating periodically to edit war hot button IP topics away from WP:NPOV Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are all completely different edits based on completely different rationales:

    Edit 1 - Was based on the rationale that the infobox should be limited to the events itself rather than other events that happened at the same time. (see the talk page where I brought about dozen other examples). (See lengthy discussions at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#tangential_material_in_infobox )

    Edit 2 - Was a non-controversial edit. The argument brought by editors for including the information from my last edit, was that the deaths in operation Brother's Keeper should be included in the infobox, therefore I left that information. No one has claimed anywhere that deaths outside that operation should be included too, nor is there any rationale for this. (Again as per discussions on the talk page. (See discussions at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#tangential_material_in_infobox )

    Edit 3 - Was simply removing old speculation based on dated news stories -- information which has now been proven to be incorrect. (See discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#Justifications )

    Edit 4 - Was removing unsourced photos. (See discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#photo_caption:_Street_in_Ramallah_after_IDF_raid. ) Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking through the edits on that article, I find the complainant's actions curious and hypocritical. In the time that I made four edits to the article, he made six. And whereas I explained all of my edits on the talkpage and engaged with all who disagree with me by providing numerous examples and arguments to bolster my case, he has refused to do so and instead engaged in baseless ad hominem attacks -- a tactic he resorted to once again here. I hope that this will be followed up further by any administrator who sees this. Wikieditorpro (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined The edits aren't reversions of the same (or substantially the same) material multiple times, i.e. doesn't appear to be edit warring over some added material. For the 1RR stuff, I think it'd be best to bring this to WP:AE where more admins can review the situation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lord Roem: - This interpretation of whether an edit (or rather an uninterrupted sequence of edits to an article by an editor) should be regarded as a revert is not the same as some other admins. See this recent discussion at the ANI noticeboard. I'll ping @EdJohnston: and @Bbb23:. Would it be possible for admins to initiate an discussion between admins to settle this once and for all so that there is clarity and consistency ? For the record, I don't think it really matters which interpretation is used, but do I think it's important that all admins and editors use the same one, particular in a topic area like ARBPIA covered by discretionary sanctions/1RR. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this may very well be a case requiring AE actions to be taken, but in the context of this board, don't think it falls under 3RR. Or, it's at least not as clear-cut as most others I've acted on here, where the editor(s) who ends up blocked fought with another on the same sentence/paragraph or idea. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lord Roem, I'm not taking any position on this particular case because I haven't looked at it, but addressing Sean.hoyland's question, a revert, as defined by policy, is undoing another editor's action. It doesn't matter that the material is different from the last revert or the next revert. The undoing doesn't mean the immediately preceding action. Thus, for example, if you delete a sentence in an article, that would be a revert because some editor or editors added that sentence, and it wouldn't matter if others weren't currently warring with you over that sentence. DangerousPanda said what amounts to the same thing above.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment Bbb23. Although I have an opinion about this (which is closer to Lord Roem's view), my opinion doesn't really matter, and I don't need to be involved in the discussion which I think needs to be sorted out between admins. I don't mind which interpretation is used. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I would just like to make sure there is only one (or one-ish because things can get a bit complicated in practice). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Yeah, we're on the same page. Probably imprecise wording on my part; was just saying this didn't look like either the typical 3RR violation or--on first glance--edit warring. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.86.101.218 reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: 69.86.101.218 blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 69.86.101.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Comments:

    User:Dlv999 reported by User:Wikieditorpro (Result: Declined)

    Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [71]
    2. [72]
    3. [73]
    4. [74]
    5. [75]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

    Comments:

    User has reverted article five times with minimal engagement on talk page. User has previously violated 1RR on several occasions.

    • Declined. This report is stale (reported user hasn't edited the article since the last report was filed) and obviously retaliatory. Perhaps the reporter should take this to WP:AE and see how he fares there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was reviewing this one at the same time. I don't see the 1RR at all. There are 5 edits in question. The edit at 00:38 (July 1) preceded the other by more than 24 hours. The edits at 14:14, 14:13, and 14:12 are consecutive and would only count as one. The edit at 14:27 explicitly notes it is reverting an IP, which is exempt from the 1RR per the WP:ARBPIA ruling and the talk page notice. This edit does indeed seem to revert an edit by an IP on June 30 at 21:59. So, bad faith aside, I don't see technical merit either. Kuru (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toatec reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: Topic-banned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [78]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [79]
    2. [80]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] And previous notice of WP:ARBPIA restrictions: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

    Comments:
    This article (and specifically, content that attempts to classify it as being in the "Occupied West Bank" vs. "Judean Desert") falls under the 1RR restriction that applies to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    I've topic banned them from all WP:ARBPIA articles as they are an SPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a reason to topic-ban Kipa Adumah as well… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nomoskedasticity: Given the discussions which have already taken place about that, I'd rather it was submitted to WP:AE with evidence. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lisa Bathgate reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

    Page
    A.K.A. (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lisa Bathgate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 02:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) to 03:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 02:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ""
      3. 03:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC) to 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User continues to edit-war over musical genres on A.K.A., and has done soft-editing on Unapologetic. Contunues to accuse others of edit-warring, while ignoring their own warnings. Attemped on the Unapologetic article to tell user about the consensus on the talk page, only to be told source over "opinion". User's username may also violate Wikipedia policies. User also warned twice on their disruptive and vandalism, only to remove all warnings and continue their editing. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=615481815"