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 174.23.160.130 (talk) at 09:25, 30 May 2016 (→User:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.160.130 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    user:Jobas reported by user:Xtremedood (Result: No violation)

    Page: List of converts to Islam from Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    User has been warned by other users in the past about edit warring: [5], [6]


    Comments:

    user:Jobas broke the 3RR. Xtremedood (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.241.26.20 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    141.241.26.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722353929 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    2. 15:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722353805 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    3. 15:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722353679 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    4. 15:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722353548 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    5. 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Chabahar Port */ This may I remind the Indian editors is about cpec not some 0.5 billion dollar port in Iran please add all this information on chabahar article"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
    2. 15:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
    3. 15:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    4. 15:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
    5. 15:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
    6. 15:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    So what was wrong with my edit Justin? 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, you are removing sourced content. Clubjustin Talkosphere 15:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If this was any other article, I'd block both of you for edit warring. However, since discretionary sanctions apply: Page protected
    Still, @Clubjustin: you were very close to getting blocked as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.173.237.249 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Atlas Comics (1950s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.173.237.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    This is a sock-puppeting anon IP in the 86.173 range making the same non-standard edits, flouting WP:BRD, and refusing to discuss his edits.

    Previous version reverted to: [7] 18:09, 25 May 2016 (as 86.173.238.19)]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8] 22:16, 26 May 2016 (as 86.173.237.249)
    2. [9] 22:27, 26 May 2016 (as 86.173.237.249)
    3. [10] 10:40, 27 May 2016 (as 86.173.238.156)
    4. [11] 17:40, 27 May 2016 (as 86.173.238.156)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] (86.173.238.156), [13] (86.173.237.249)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Comments:
    I asked for page protection, and remarkably, despite the clear edit warring, that protection is not forthcoming. These IP sock-puppets have been edit-warring to add non-standard, non-consensus formatting so that some citations to a database are given one way and some are given another way in the same article. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Imeldific (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Imelda Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    1. 10:05, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC) "→‎Wealth"
    2. 12:19, 23 May 2016‎
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:28, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 722321171 by Cagliost (talk): Revert vandalism from single purpose account. . (TW)"
    2. 08:15, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 721681501 by The Madras (talk): Revert edits from a blatant single purpose account. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • Declined: Spacecowboy420 hasn't violated 3rr. You've also been reverted by a second use (which puts you closer to edit warring). You do indeed appear to be a single purpose account. Although I wouldn't go so far as to call your edits vandalism, they certainly do go against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant reported by User:HappyValleyEditor (Result: Page protected)

    If the discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Max Dean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16], which is a revert of [[17]]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] (I'm not sure I completely understand what is being asked by "diff of edit warring")

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

    Comments: I was a bit late on getting to the talk page, but I did get there. I would like nothing more than to stay away form this editor. I 'banned' them from my talk page, but they came to it a couple days later, ignored my request that they stay away, and started playing nice asking for help. I did not answer, I suddenly find my pages being stalked by this editor. I really want nothing more than to be far away from them, but they insist on interfering in my work. The reference removed is a very, very good ref! The Institution in question bought the artwork that the ref refers to, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers. I knwo their process-- they have an actual team of due diligence people. That kind of ref is gold in the art world. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NoW that I read the policy above, I may have reverted too many times as well (3). In any case if there is a method for getting this editor to stay away from my pages (is it not common sene to do so when there are repeated disputes?) I would appreciate that as well. I know that when I see their user name I do try to walk the other way... unfotunately not today though! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I am aware they are not "my" pages--poor choice of words. What about the 3RR Rule?HappyValleyEditor (talk)
    • First of all, the above report is misleading. I reverted three times not four. The first diff listed above is not a revert, It is a simple edit [23]

    Secondly, this reporting user also reverted three times. I asked him on the second revert to go to the talk page per brd and he did not. He just blindlessly reverted me again. This user is angry with me because of an incident where he was personally attacking an editor, so I called him out on it and warned him. He denied the attack on my talk page and attacked the editor a second time. I warned him again. An observant administrator Coffee observed this and went to the reporters talk page and gave him a final warning.[24] After that the reporter here has been mad because he thinks I reported him when I did not. HappyValleyEditor has been sending unwanted emails that are scaring me. I want him to just leave me alone. He is also angry with me about me helping editor Jzsj The reporter has been stalking his edits and trying to delete most all his articles. I was attempting to help Jzsj about policies and how to fill out an AFD discussion and vote. HappyValleyEditor emailed me then and tryied to bully me into stop helping the guy because he was a Jesuit. He said You need to disengage from him OK because he is Jesuit. I din not respond, but has emailed me again. The emails are scaring me. I feel that HVE is harassing me, and now he is trying to have me blocked, probably so I cannot collaborate wth Jzsj in trying to help save some of the articles he created. Again, I only made 3 reverts certainly not 4. HVE is being misleading on that and putting forth a false report. I patrol new pages daily, so if HVE writes I new page, it will likely be in the que. If there are misspellings and grammar mistakes (like there were today)I will correct them like on all other new articles. It is nothing personal. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor interaction analysis shows you are following me around, which is wikistalking. ONE QUESTION: what is it goign to take for you to leave me alone? I am not angry, I want to be left alone by you. the two emails said that, and I encourage any admin to read them as they were sent in the Wiki system. Please drop the stick! Leave me to my editing. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is explained easily since I was going around to all of the article pages created by Jzsj which you have been systematically been gutting, prodding and AFD'ing, so when I am at those articles to evaluate them and try to improve them, we will obviously be at the same pages. Also you and I both patrol new pages, so it is likely we may be at, or edit some of those same pages. Do not try to change the subject though. You accused me here of doing four reverts. Not true and quite misleading. Can you not admit you were wrong about that? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the subject here is 3RR and your four reverts are above. That is all I am going to say. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff you list as a revert is a simple edit. See here: 07:53, 28 May 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,959 bytes) (-200)‎ . . (→‎Work: removed press release being used as a reference, unreliable please see WP:RS)

    Here is the diff from above you listed as a revert = [25] Not a revert, you cannot admit you are wrong when it is in black and white right before you. 09:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, for having come to my defense. I appreciate that the system does work, and that you along with the administrator have brought about what should be an end to what seemed to be editing targeted at my work. It appears that HappyValleyEditor just began editing a few months ago, and should come to understand the spirit of consensus and sweet reasonableness in policing and discussing Wikipedia business. From the start I've gotten somewhat different advice from different editors and have had to decide for myself what seems right. As I mentioned to HVE, Wikipedia is bemoaning the drop in users since 2013, and we should keep our larger audience in mind when placing tags and removing articles, not placing 3 or 4 tags when 1 or 2 will do and certainly not leaving ourselves open to any charge of prejudice which will turn away whole groups of readers for a lifetime! I hope that your discussion above has led to a reasonable resolution of this whole affair.Jzsj (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ai yai yai! this isi a 3RR Report, not a section of violins at th orchestra!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jytdog reported by User:81.36.240.108 (Result: Page protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27] "revert change to less correct"
    2. [28] "revert back to grammatical biosynthesis. keep correct of nesbitt change"
    3. [29] "changes were explained. seeking PP from editing warring IP editor since I cannot bring 3RR"
    4. [30] ""is biosynthesised" is not English"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: can't warn or communicate with them as their talk page is protected.

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

    Comments:

    I think this user's first language is not English, as they are restoring incorrect grammar and syntax among other things. They have not really explained why they are undoing my changes, just stated that they are going so. Only concrete objection they have raised to my changes is their claim that ""is biosynthesised" is not English", which is obviously not true. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained in every edit note and had already requested page protection here. As I noted here among other times, yes"is biosynthesised" is not English. Biosynthesized is English. And the article Talk page is quite open to you, IP. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user requested semi-protection, which is generally used only when a page is afflicted by repeated vandalism. They claimed "Edit warring IP that can't spell", thus making personal attacks while themselves edit warring excessively and violating the 3RR. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I am realizing that you are applying UK spelling to a US spelling article. See WP:ENGVAR. This was a truly stupid edit war. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly agree that edit warring over a spelling that you were simply ignorant of was truly stupid. You haven't tried to explain any of the other changes you were undoing. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears we have resolved almost all of this at talk and the PP request was denied as we were finally talking. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog is continuing to edit war, with a fifth partial revert: [31]. Talk page discussions exist but they obviously do not give this user the right to keep on violating the 3RR. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly did not. If you somehow believe otherwise, perhaps you should post links to all four reverts that you think I made. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No block or even warning to the user who broke and continued to break the 3RR? And the article protected with his most recent edit intact? I guess the days of the 3RR being a "bright line rule" are long gone. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog self-reverted his fourth revert, which is enough to prevent blocking under 3RR. clpo13(talk) 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And he then re-reverted. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has requested I provide the evidence for them breaking 3RR so:

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The first one is my original edit to the article. That is not a revert, is it? What is your problem here exactly? 88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is. You reverted existing text. Hence, you edit-warred. Cheers mate! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Top trolling.88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be nice if people would stop having a go at me and instead warn the person who actually broke the 3RR that they shouldn't have done that. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I warned both of you if you read my first comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're lying again. If one does read your first comment, ones sees that it said that I "broke 4 reverts first. Looks like we have the pot calling the kettle black." That's not a warning, either to me or to the guy who actually broke the 3RR, is it? And it is still obviously not true. The first edit I made to the article, most people will readily grasp, cannot possibly be described as a revert. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about this folks - most of the IP's changes were good - I got hung up on the UK spellling thing and the move away from WP:PLAIN and have apologized to the IP. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How childish to pretend now that you were edit warring over a UK/US spelling difference. You were edit warring because you didn't know the English language, and you made personal attacks while doing so. Edit warring IP that can't spell, "is biosynthesised" is not English You made 5 reverts within 24 hours and continued to edit war long after I'd reported your initial violation. It's outrageous that you haven't been blocked for your disruption. I guess you have pals amongst the admins. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.185.19.13 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Public Ivy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.185.19.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]
    5. [41]
    6. [42] (made after the initial report and warning)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    User:E1e10p reported by User:Oshwah (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

    Page
    Caro–Kann Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    E1e10p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722677380 by Oshwah (talk)"
    2. 15:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) "Cultural slur removed, replaced by more accurate designation."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Caro–Kann Defence. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See [this talk page creation by the user]. Clearly a content dispute. Made an additional reversion after I warned for 3RR. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: user has continued to edit war even after receiving the notice. A block, and possibly page protection is now in order. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a section to article Talk page explaining origins behind the name and showing that it was valid. I also reverted another disruptive edit by user. It was reverted again within minutes. User is highly disruptive and not seeking to find a solution. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and also believe that WP:NOTHERE can also be considered. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nthep (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.160.130 (Result: )

    Page: Ray Combs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]

    So just as the above paragraph of hidden text says, it takes 4 of these in a day to have broken 3RR, but this user is still warring against perfectly good improvements (the removal of stray hyphens, the forming of proper s-ending possessives, the removal of an obvious redundancy, improving some kludgy wording, and acknowledging that people have more than one spinal disc).

    He/she seems to think he can WP:OWN that article even though all of my editions are valid improvements, as if he had written it (but I know he didn't) and believes it's "his property not to be changed," although that specifically breaks WP:own. For some odd reason he wants to maintain errors and poor wording, and I don't get it. Please instruct this user not to wp:own and block him or her for a while.

    174.23.160.130 (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [He/she hasn't posted anything to the talk page; see edit summaries.]

    Comments:
    I have nothing to say other than 174.23.160.130 is a highly likely ipsock of User:Who R U?, who was blocked for edit warring. We are allowed to revert edits made by blocked users and their puppets. Here is the investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?. Their rangeblock has expired recently. Sro23 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article history suggests that the IP editor has been reverted by about four different editors. Is there any chance of WP:BOOMERANG.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sure, of course because you all have name accounts and are likely in some kind of clique, you should try to figure out any way you can to gang up against this "lowly IP-based editor" to make the report bounce off yourselves and stick to me, shouldn't you? Perfect example of being wp:uncivil. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not involved, but I am an admitted grammar...stickler. I would note that our possible IP sock friend is correct about the hyphens and possessives. I would do it myself if I didn't fear getting caught up in this dispute. I must ask what, precisely, is the benefit to the project of reverting on sight here? Pinging @Ebyabe:, since he too was involved. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an IP sock; my service is dynamic. You've never heard of that? I saw 2 editors reverting purely reasonable edits until just now when their apparent sock friend (or at least meat, probably because they have their little clique and called on him to come and form a funny little "consensus" against the IPer) came by to support their clique work.

    174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a sock of 174.23.160.130 or Who R U? but an interested observer. You are correct about Sro23. The irony of all this is Sro23 is likely a sock of a former user, and there is also a clique among certain editors who are actively protecting him. 175.101.8.46 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, 175.... 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhuh. Apparently something is "wrong" with editing the redundancy "Glendale _____ in Glendale" out, right? Okay, haha, "good one"! 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard is for user conduct, not for content. Whether your edits are right or wrong should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. I notice that though your edits summaries demand that other users discuss your edits on the talk page, you have not posted anything on the article talk page.
    IPs 174.23.160.146, 174.23.160.130, 174.23.173.58, 75.162.213.245 are all based in Utah (USA), and are probably the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaand... you've never heard of dynamic IPs either, then?

    This is only about conduct? Oh, okay, so you can see why I brought up sro's edit-warring conduct then, can't you? And if that's so, then why are you so concerned with what the edits say?

    Of course, I asked that you take your little reversion to the talk page. You were the next guy in line from your little clique to make a ridiculous reversion, so why should I be the one to start the talk on the page instead of you? And then if the wording is your only issue, why are you reverting all the other work I did with it? 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=722821509"