Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.
 You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.
Click here to create a new report

User:SWF88 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Vikings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SWF88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: User talk:SWF88#June 2016

Comments:
Attempted to discuss the issue on the user's talk page, but they refused all logic. They then falsely accused me of sockpuppetry when an IP editor also reverted them [8] (revert) [9] (accusation). Alex|The|Whovian? 10:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

the section you're referring to consists of pieces critical of the show. Also, the show is not a religion, political party or a living person. Neutral point of view doesn't necessarily apply in this case, especially since the section title just reflects the content. SWF88 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
refused logic? really? is that i clearly stated i welcome third party opinions? careful not to start WP:PERSONAL mr 'experienced editor'. SWF88 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
That does not give you the right to edit war, especially while in discussion. Read WP:BRD: you made a bold edit, you were reverted, and then you should have stayed put and discussed it to gain a consensus before reinstating your edit. The logic comment was concerning the original discussion, not your reply to my warning template. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, User:SWF88 could be blocked for edit warring. (Five reverts of the same thing over nine days with no use of the talk page, and nobody agreeing with them). They might avoid sanctions if they promise to stop reverting until their position gets consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:SWF88 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again before getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sankeykool reported by User:Nairspecht (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Akash Ambani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sankeykool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727327648 by Nairspecht (talk) The controversies are alleged and its clearly mentioned. Please go through the references.
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Akash Ambani. (TW)"
  2. 08:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Akash Ambani. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 08:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ new section"
Comments:

Has been engaging in edit wars in multiple pages, blanked warnings from his/her talk page, copied signatures. Looks like a troll. Nairspecht Converse 08:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No violation on this page. Sankeykool has made two edits to the page recently. One being a revert of content they added that was removed without explanation. This has been reverted a second time with an explanation. It is time for Sankeykool to go to the article talk page and discuss the information they want to add. -- GB fan 10:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nairspecht reported by User:Sankeykool (Result:No violation )[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukesh_Ambani&type=revision&diff=727332003&oldid=727071844


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANairspecht&type=revision&diff=727339496&oldid=727331019

Comments:

No edit warring here. Nairspecht has made 2 edits to the article recently. They are consecutive and are both reverts of Sankeykool's edits. Sankeykool made some bold edits, Nairspecht reverted them. Now it is time for Sankeykool to go to the article talk page and discuss the edits and explain why they belong and the provide sources. -- GB fan 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TzviMichelsohn reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Menachem Mendel Schneerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TzviMichelsohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "removed info not in sources."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) to 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "removed source that does not back up claim. reading them one-by-one."
    2. 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "this claim not made or supported in wsj. so removed."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User doesn't want some information in the lede, so is saying that nothing is sourced and is removing information. Article, specifically the Tablet one doesn't say at all what TM says it says, and TM says the Tablet article doesn't say that people believed the Rebbe to be the Messia, but reading the article, it says exactly that. He has been warned before about his pro-Chabad POV I tried to engage him on the talk page, where he BTW makes insinuations about sockpuppetry. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I invite admins to have a look at SirJoseph behavior and decide. This editor is adding info that has no source and removing info that does. This editor has engaged in edit warring (not just with me) and then accuses me of edit warring. TM (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You are deleting properly sourced cites. Even after I warned you, you still remove the Tablet link and VIN is not a comment section. You need to stop removing properly cited sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not reverting you because I don't want to violate 3RR or edit war, but you are still reverting proper sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The Tablet Mag article in the paragraph starting "The Rebbe’s entire life" mentions that people believe him to be the messiah. Why did you remove that cite? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed the Bar Hayim claim, when that article specifically mentions the Rebbe and messiah (http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-ask-the-rav/31-general/424-the-false-mashiah-of-lubavitch-habad). Why did you remove that cite? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed the VIN claim with the fact that "it's a comment." No, the VIN piece linked to a VIN article, not to comments on that article: http://www.vosizneias.com/31329/2009/05/06/crown-heights-ny-rabbi-menashe-klein-messianic-group-within-chabad-are-apikorsim/ So again, why did you remove it? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am OK with no sanction if he agrees to use the talk page before making reverts that might be contentious. The talk page is there for a reason and if he's reverting things that are contentious, it should be discussed first. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am glad another editor has begun looking at the sources as well and also realizes that I am correct. You are adding sources to support a claim that is not made in those sources. "He is believed to be the Messiah by many of his followers." This claim is simply not there. Some of them may speak about messiasnim within chabad, mostly in past tense, but none make the claim that you are insisting on being in the lede. The VIN article also says nothing of the sort, it's comment section does however. Also, let me ask you here, in front of the admins, why you removed/changed the statement "He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the the 20th century." It seems SirJoseph adds what he wants when there is no sources for it, and removes what he doesn't like even when there are. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. TM (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what your problem is, the lede already says "he is arguably one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the second half of the 20th century" Like I asked you on the talk page, what exactly is your problem with the lede now? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And you are still removing properly cited sources, even after asked to use the talk page and being brought to this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This is being discussed on the talk page. I was not the only editor to realize that you are making claims and trying to support them with sources that don't support them... TM (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. You want to make the article even more of a hagiography? Be my guest. You are removing things you don't like because of your bias and it is showing. You are an SPA and I don't need to put up with this. Go and destroy the article as you see fit. I am removing the page from my watchlist. Feel free to remove any negative sources you don't want the world to see. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Feel free to close this. I have removed the page from the watchlist. I can't deal with SPA biased editors right now. If they want to remove every negative source, that's fine by me. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. User:Sir Joseph could have been blocked as well, but he seems to have promised to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Battle of the Bastards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]
  6. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Comments:

To be clear, I am reporting for edit warring, not 3RR. The user has been engaged in a multi-day edit war, that has involved myself reverting to the established consensus version, User:AffeL also reverted the user, and the user being reported has continually attempted to add their own version of a part of the article, without any sort of consensus. I discussed this on the article's talk page with the user. They believe that their version does not need any sort of consensus. Their first edit involved removing the entire summary of the plot section, which existed because of WP:Lead. Their next edit involved replacing what had already existed with their own version. I reverted this, and the user reverted back. The user was reverted by someone else, and they reverted back. This has continued slowly over the past few days. My only contention is that consensus was not obtained, and therefore I have reverted. I don't have any ill will or personal vendetta against the user, I have remained entirely civil, and believe I am in the right to have reverted them, as they did not wait to obtain consensus on the article's talk page before reverting to their version of the article. Please also note this message left on my talk page, cursing at me and threatening to report me for 3RR. I do not have any desire to revert the article once more, as I would like a verdict to be reached with this report. Calibrador (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please also note block log for this user, which shows at least three blocks for edit warring in the past. Calibrador (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I had just given this user their final warning about this very same problem (they have at least 6 reverts of the same material over the same period of time:
  1. 08:57, 28 June 2016
  2. 23:30, 25 June 2016
  3. 23:29, 24 June 2016
  4. 20:14, 23 June 2016
to name just four) and had drafted a 3RR complaint; I was giving them a last chance to actually participate in article discussion to forego having to do so. But I guess they think the best defense is a good offense. At least three of the edits Calibrador is using here are sequential edits, and are substantially different in content.
Calibrador has been engaged in a slow-motion edit war for almost a week, and failing to engage in either discussion as to their version or warnings to stop edit-warring (on their user talk page). Apparently, they have been edit-warring on other Game of Thrones pages, which suggests a patten.
I'd also point out that - content issues aside - I've altered versions of the Lede section in question so as to seek a more agreeable version, but the user keeps reverting back to a specific version (which I suspect they created themselves).
The main problem, as I see it, is that the user thinks that the Lede is a necessary redundancy for the article, whereas most see it as a an explanation of the article in the broadest strokes, leaving particulars (for episodic/entertainment articles, at least) for the plot section. They fail to grasp this, and further limit themselves by thinking that edit-summaries are the best way to communicate their view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And wow, bringing up a 2-year old block log. That's just sad. Do they also want to point out that I like butterscotch, too? The user didn't even get the number of blocks right. Sheesh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I've discussed the changes since you first discussed them yourself. I left a comment on the article's talk page, which is where you should have been seeking consensus from the article's contributors. This was not done, you simply reverted each time you were. Calibrador (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Correction: you revert and then come in to drop a comment. And you've done that. Twice. Out of a half-dozen reverts. Not a good track record, really. And when I initially reverted, I started a talk page topic about it. You were nowhere to be found. Much like your notice to me of this complaint - nowhere to be found. I'm sure it was a simple oversight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You keep repeating this "nowhere to be found" refrain, and yet it does not seem to be true. Calibrador (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please also retract your accusation that I reverted you six times. There's a reason you were only able to link to four, two of which referred you to obtain consensus before reverting, which, as I stated, you did not do. Calibrador (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I only counted the four most blatant reverts. You will note that I haven't liked your edit-warring on other GoT-related pages, either. Had you used the article discussion page instead of thinking that an edit-summary would resolve any dissent, we wouldn't be here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please link to these other reversions on the Battle of the Bastards article. Calibrador (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
See, this is the sort of discussion you should have avoided having to have by using the talk page more effectively. We aren't here to discuss content but instead approach to editing. You haven't been very good about editing collaboratively, and have been pretty unmoving with regards to your pet version. That's a problem for the rest of us on the GoT pages where you are consistently running into disagreements. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You didn't respond to my request. I also disagree with your statement about consistently running into disagreements. The only thing I can think of is a very recent talk page discussion for a season article. All of my other contributions have resulted in the article being put up for GA nomination. Calibrador (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean, the article that you wanted to be GA long before it was actually ready for nomination? The very fact that you brought this up suggests a problem with your ability to work with others in the article. I want GA quality (and FA quality) too but, as the editor who quickfailed the nomination pointed out, you need to let the article get stable. Claiming the dissentwers don't know how article rules works is, frankly, a stupid way to go about collaborating.
Anyhoo, a simple look at your contributions shows these same sorts of arguments popping up with you in other articles. Everyone knows that I am a stickler for the letter of the rules (for good or ill). I had suggested to you on numerous occasions that you needed to discuss more and revert less. You took that instead as a challenge to file a complaint against someone who disagrees with you. I suspect that you consider this the best way to deal with dissent. It really isn't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not nominate, desire or want the articles to be nominated. Calibrador (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course you didn't, which is why you are the sole commenter apart from the person quickfailing it. Maybe be quiet now, and reflect on how much of this problem you could have resolved, had you actually discussed this issue on the article talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop launching false accusations. Calibrador (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I will reiterate, since you clearly weren't reading my posts: Maybe be quiet now, and reflect on how much of this problem you could have resolved (or out and out avoided), had you actually discussed this issue on the article talk page. And there hasn't been any false accusations, at least, not by me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. Give it a rest. How about you both consider going back to talk for the time being and try to find some kind of middle ground between "I'm right" and "You're wrong". You've bludgeoned each other for four pages over a mainly stylistic difference regarding a single paragraph. There's a thing called compromise, where you try to take each of your preferred versions and use the best of both worlds. I highly recommend it. TimothyJosephWood 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the user just left another message with curse words on my talk page, I would much more prefer it if someone took a closer look, rather than a generalized one. Another user on the article talk page agreed with me, and the user is still trying to weasel it into being their way. Calibrador (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the user has reverted User:Somethingwickedly as well. This to me is a clear suggestion that they have no intent on actually allowing anyone else's version to be used. Their version says "decisively" twice in the same sentence, can someone else please step in? Calibrador (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll abide by the solution, but I absolutely guarantee that you are going to see Calibrador here again, at someone else's report. What wasn't apparently clearly stated enough is that the reporting party was reverting back to their hand-crafted version. When Timothyjosephwood restored after this caveat from you, he got what he wanted. Yeah, that seems like a legit solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
After this report and the warnings issues by EdJohnston to both editors, Calibrador continued by removing a reply to a talk page discussion that Jack Sebastian posted, per this edit, with the explanation of "not asked for". Doesn't seem very collaborative to me. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I could give two shits about the article in question. I like watching GoT, but I've long since decided to only edit articles related to it if they are jut plain wrong, or filled with fancruft. In the article in question, the user was using WP:Lede wrong, but no one noticed that. All anyone here ever looked at was the back and forth, and that I use the word shit and/or fuck.
What's the effing point, if you guys are going to cudgel someone when they are trying to improve the encyclopedia while rewarding the one gaming passive-aggressive games? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And it didn't take long for my prediction to come true. Somone else pointed out a problem with the user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:W.C. Justice reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Warren County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: W.C. Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. My attempt to contact user on their talk page: [26]
  2. Velella attempts to contact user on their talk page: [27]
  3. User appears disinterested in discussion: [28]
  4. User refuses to reach consensus: [29]

Comments:

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Moved and warnings)[edit]

Page: Draft:Game of Thrones (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User being reported is an experienced user well aware of the 3RR policies.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

User has reverted the addition of a color scheme four times, within 24 hours or just outside 24 hours. Also moved the article to draft space when they didn't get their way after reverting three times, in order to avoid 3RR. They just reverted the color scheme for a fourth time. Attempted to discuss what their issue was with this, including linking the season six article, which they edited and added the infobox color to, but was told in an edit summary that they do not wish to discuss anything with me. Calibrador (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory report because I refuse to discuss with this editor after they acted uncivil and pulled at straws the entire conversation (e.g "Perhaps their newly acquired file mover rights should be revoked, as that seems to be an abuse of power" after I moved a page from article to draft), and also after I agreed with the opposing editor in a report further up the page by the same user. No violation of 3RR has occurred here, this is per an agreement I'm currently under after the grant of another user right. Also noted that there's no diff of edit warring/3RR warning, nor notification of this report on my user page. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You are aware of 3RR. Calibrador (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
None of those are reverts. Amaury (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Per the above editor. I haven't reverted anyone. And no matter how aware you think an editor is, you are always meant to warn them. You have failed in this. What of the section in the header of this page that states You must notify any user you report? As I've said, all this is is a retaliatory report. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The reporting user as now attempted to warn me of 3RR after they submitted this report. It's obvious that they are now just attempting to be a troll. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously. Calibrador (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong place for it. It appears that the reporting editor created this report just to get me to discuss with them. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it was to report you for the removal of the same content four times over the span of a little more than 24 hours. Calibrador (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A good deal more than 24, with no reverts. And your post of Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously says otherwise. As mentioned, this report is nothing but the actions of a disgruntled editor upset at the effects of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Still edit warring all the same. Calibrador (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
In your opinion. We shall wait to see what an administrator says. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring would be him reverting—keyword: reverting, which isn't happening in the first place—back to his preferred version. From what I can see, that is not happening here. Amaury (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
They removed content to create their preferred version, whether it's blanking or adding notes, both accomplish the same thing. Calibrador (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Calibrador: Even if that was the case, which I won't say it was or it wasn't as I wasn't in AlexTheWhovian's shoes, can you prove that was his intention? What if instead of creating his preferred version, he was simply trying to improve the article? Unless he specifically said, "I'm doing this so the article is how I want it to look and will not let other editors change it," I don't think there's any way you can prove his edits were ill-lead. Amaury (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
If they were trying to improve the article, they did not discuss this on the talk page after doing it three times initially. They moved the article to draft space instead. Calibrador (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You know why. When I did, you acted with an uncivil tongue. Moving it to the draft namespace is not related to this incident. On that, it's then when you retaliated in a bad faith manner and moved two other pages that I have edited to the draft namespace, only those specific two, without discussion on the talk pages of those articles for editors on those pages. Exactly what you accused me of doing. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Likely because it wasn't ready to be an article. He very well could have tagged the article for speedy deletion and it would have been speedily deleted by an administrator, but he instead made it a draft so it had the chance to be brought up to article standards. And no, in most cases, edits don't need to be discussed. If a new episode of a TV show airs and I update the episode count, I do not need to discuss that. The only time edits need to or should be discussed are when issues are raised with them, and that is not the case here. Just because you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing simply because you're upset over whatever it was that he did—likely nothing—doesn't mean there are issues with his edits. Amaury (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador and AlexTheWhovian: Grumble. {{Trout}}s all around. Alex, there is enough there to pass csd. Please use traditional discussion methods before drafityfying things. I have moved it back to the mainspace. The both of you, stop snipping at each other and please don't edit war. Continuing to change the color of the infobox by either of you will find yourselves with blocks. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned because the blasted bots require one of these Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )[edit]

Page
Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page
Talk:Madonna (entertainer) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bluesatellite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

(Madonna (entertainer)

  1. 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Since when add the REFERENCES to Wikipedia considered "disruptive editing"? You want it to be sourced, I provide it"
  2. 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical style and songwriting */ add the "pusing boundaries thing""
  3. 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727567134 by Winkelvi (talk) Dear lord, please check revisions at the article's history (on the talk page). This sentence has passed through WP:GAC and WP:FAC."
  4. 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727526954 by Winkelvi (talk) This is the original version and has been STABLE this way for so long. You should wait for consensus before changing it."

(Talk:Madonna (entertainer))

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Madonna. (TW)"
  2. 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Madonna (entertainer). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ new section"
  2. 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ edit warring sans discussion should not continue"
  3. 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ new section"
  4. 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ +"
  5. 01:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ resp"
  6. 01:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ don't change the format again - there's nothing wrong or against policy in the way it is set up - I've done quite a few of these and participated in more"
  7. 01:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Poll */ readding discussion header"
  8. 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ STOP - do NOT change the RfC structure - last warning"
Comments:

Editor is pushing his viewpoint through disruptive editing and edit warring at the article as well as the RfC on the article talk page. Refuses to take part in the RfC, rather, is choosing to add content while discussion and RfC on said content is still occurring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to disrupt the RfC by removing headers and insist that the RfC structure is violating policy. It's not. The RfC structure is now a mess and I won't revert it back lest I also be seen as edit warring. I have added the pertinent diffs above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear administrators, all I have done is just stick with Wikipedia policies, WP:V, WP:WIKINOTVOTE, WP:CONS. I don't think insisting on policies is criminal, isn't it? The problem here is that certain user just come making a bold editing, and ignoring the input of that article's WikiProject editors. The article has been that way for a very long time, and then the user wants to change it without considering consensus. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm totally unclear on why you think what you listed above trumps the rules of an WP:RfC and how it is run. You can't just overrule the RfC and change the format of it willy-nilly in an attempt to invalidate and sabotage it. Further, while an RfC or a discussion is happening on the article talk page, you can't just start adding content to suit and support your point of view. That is - I'm pretty certain - forcing a consensus that fits your preferred version of the article by shaping the article to reflect your !vote. It's basically akin to stuffing the ballot box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:175.110.86.117 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )[edit]

Page
Third Battle of the Shaer gas field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts

[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

The article in question is under a general 1RR rule in regards to any ISIL-related articles. In other words, Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users. The IP editor conducted not two, but four reverts of me and editor Mehmedsons. The editor also conducted numerous other questionable edits at other articles (such as removing sourced information and its sources) and has been reverted each time ether by me, Mehmedsons or several other editors, and has been warned in the edit summaries, but still he keeps coming back. EkoGraf (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=727626507"