Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 1 May 2016

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Anders165 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Liwa Ahfad Saladin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anders165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

04:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717172652 by Dr.K. (talk)"
04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717171663 by Dr.K. (talk)"
04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717168537 by EtienneDolet (talk)"
15:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "Which sources ? Only Pro-FSA sources claim self. This group is not Kurdish and not represent majority of Syrian Kurds. YOU CAN create a group under the name of Syrian Kurds, but you cannot hide the true."
01:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC) "This is not Kurdish group. They just claim it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Iğdır. (TW ★TW)"
04:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elazığ Province. (TW ★TW)"
04:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Liwa Ahfad Saladin. (TW ★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring across multiple articles. Does not stop despite multiple warnings. His recent contributions consist of pure edit-warring across multiple articles. Large-scale, bot-like edit-warring disruption without any discussion. Dr. K. 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In this edit-summary the user is mocking the Armenian Genocide: Yes, we know that Armenians were massacred by the Turks . bla.bla.bla.... XD. Dr. K. 04:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Blocked as a sock by Gogo Dodo~~. Dr. K. 04:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Gogo Dodo, whose sock is it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I think I misread the editing pattern as the usual Vgleer sock that undoes Dr.K.'s edits. However, they are still edit warring, so I reset the block to 24 hours. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my comment above, but I still wish to thank you for stopping this disruption. Dr. K. 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gogo Dodo: Very likely a sock of Sedej (talk · contribs), doing exact same edits as Sedej did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.192.131 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gogo Dodo: Anders165 started the large-scale edit-warring as soon as they got unblocked. Dr. K. 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K.: and @EtienneDolet: Sorry that I wasn't around to deal with this. I see that the SPI settled this matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:188.23.146.118 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

I introduced a tag about the innacuracy of the article. The user Xenophrenic deleted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716791439&oldid=716753258

Comments:

I really don't understand why the user keeps editing the article with misleading information. I have also repeatedly edited the article with well documented sources and did my best to write the information in a neutral way. Gustavo Petro himself recently admitted(link) that he does not hold some of the qualifications that he claimed to have.

This are the sources of the information (and there are many more) : El espectador - Colombian newspaper Semana - Colombian magazine Kienyke.com

I can provide more information on the issue if needed. Just ask for it in this page.

I don't have a wikipedia account. But if needed I'll create one. thank you.

User talk:166.170.34.148 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] [10]

Comments:

Stale Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjensen reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Page protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] - blocked 8 times already for 3rr violations ~~on US Civil War related articles.~~ mostly on US Civil War related articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

User:Toddst1 is a partisan in this mini edit war -- he does not charge the other guy who has repeatedly erased sourced material from top experts (James McPherson, Eric Foner) and until just now failed to use the talk page. User:Toddst1 furthermore grossly distorts my record ("blocked 8 times already for 3rr violations on US Civil War related articles" is simply false: there was one block re Civil War ten years ago.). I should just have reported repeated vandalism by DaltonCastle that took place while i was editing other sections of the article instead of reverting his repeated deletions of old and new sourced material . Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No. I have not edited the article, rather I voiced my concern on the talk page as a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a partisan act by Toddst1 to call out one edit-warrier and not the other. Toddst1 defends the other one and is again partisan (esp when he relies on a misreadingf of the UNDUE rule.) Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 editor transgressed 3RR and the same editor has 8 blocks for the same issue. The other editor did not and does not. WP:TE is emerging here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Three days, though I believe that WP:3RR was violated by as many as two people. On the talk page, User:BusterD seems to have some advice on how to reach an agreement. If you can't agree, consider an WP:RFC or WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User violated 3RR and begin war of edits. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user must be blocked because he still violate rules and continued unjustifed revert:

[21] SvEcHpInXID (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to confirm that there are clearly 4 reverts of 4 different editors (without edit summaries) within 24 hours. Tradedia^talk 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ракал not want stop violation the rules and his still continues unjustifated revert:

here

He is also do such actions in other page Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:

Your must stop him.SvEcHpInXID (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 3 days. This editor reverts a lot but never participates on talk. There is a 1RR in effect on these maps, as explained on their talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory purchase in England and Wales (Result: Page protected)

Someone restore order, please.—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who doesn't care[25] about a WP policy aka see also aka the inclusion of redlinks which was discussed[26] 4 months ago and a legal article editor was told[27] to cease doing it. WP guidelines say not to put them in and there is no consensus for otherwise. Note the editor was advised on his talk page of both seealso guidelines and the December 2015 talk page discussion If this editor wants to change consensus on redlinks which is also covered under WP:REDNOT, he needs to go to Seealso's or REDNOT's talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style is not policy. 3RR is, though. I've got you bang to rights, WilliamJE, and I would advise you to restore the stable revision voluntarily.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline or policy, the consensus is no redlinks per both WP:REDNOT and WP:Seealso. You want to change it, take it to the above mentioned talk pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no duty to watchlist obscure manual of style subpages in order to prevent a consensus of about six editors from coming up with stupid, ill-considered, one-size-fits-all rules that screw up thousands of articles.—S Marshall T/C 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed redlinks per WP guidelines, and other links already mentioned in the body of the article. Stability restored, guidelines followed, suggest all drop it now. Scr★pIron^IV 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would. In this case, I think not. I invite you to look at this editor's contribution history, talk page history, and recent history of conflict with other editors about this exact issue. What we have here is someone on a crusade to remove redlinks from see also sections. Administrator intervention is warranted.—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a crusade to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It is merely ensuring some consistency is followed, and good practice. Scr★pIron^IV 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To help dropping sticks, I protected the article for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really?—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected SQL ^{Query me!} 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehdinasir reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Last four are:

[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] reverted this edit from another person

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

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

Comments:

Reverting has gone on since atleast April 11. The editor is the son of Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi [33]. Have received no comment from Mehdinasir from talk messages or edit summaries. I asked for page protection, but was denied. Bgwhite (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sdpdude9 reported by User:Imhungry4444 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

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

Comments:

Instead of blocking both users - which would be completely warranted here, I have fully-protected the page for a week. I would encourage both parties in the future to work out issues on the talkpage, instead of edit-warring over something like this. * Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Factoidmactoid reported by User:Sekyaw (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] and [45]

Comments:
The user reverts with the same reason despite my multiple attempts to resolve the issue on their talk page. The edits of mine are completely reasonable and have stated my reasons of the edits on his talk page, to no avail. The user seems they are the creator of the article and are only active due to the current edit war. Sekyaw (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Comments:
IP is disruptively removing comments of other editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing blatant personal attacks. They should also be removed from edit summaries and the user making the attacks should be blocked. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:80B3:5D9:F53D:BBB1 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, along with their /64 range, since the comment on this page is already from another IP in the range. Quite apart from the edit warring, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments on talkpages, not even once. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )

Page: San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
1. 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "Why are the shooting tables do not match those from the other NOCs?"
2. 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) to 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
1. 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "consistency with the other NOC pages"
2. 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) ""
03:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "STOP HARASSING MY EDIT. DON'T STRESSED ME OUT. DON'T ASSUME ME THAT I'M NOT HUMAN."
03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "The tables must be separated."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User clearly has ownership issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party commentIt should be noted that the reporting user Sportsfan 1234 has behaved very similarly and I have warned them both on this issue. Also that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#WP:Olympics - Manual of Style attempting to resolve the issues these two users have. ~~At this stage I think a trouting may suffice as both have made some atempt to reach a consensus on the understanding that they re each on a last warning~~ - Basement12 (T.C) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. I'm done editing the San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I created the page though, but because you won the case on the edit warring. I decided to move it to the sandbox. You create the page instead, and put the necessary contents. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFS. Can which every admin deals with this please ensure that the article is moved back from User:Raymarcbadz/San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics to it's proper place. I retract my previous comment on trouting, this has gone too far. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Basement12. We'll bring the contents back if someone besides myself should re-create the article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already moved the page back, even without addressing the rest of the case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's too late. The page has been deleted. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand, Raymarcbadz has gotten the page deleted, and has now recreated it and restored it to their preferred version (which is against the MOS, and discussion!). When will this stop. There is only so much one editor can do (before it is considered edit warring, and believe me this is not the end goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you create the article instead, and see if you can prove that it follows the MOS guidelines? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case for WP:Boomerang to me. Sportsfan was not 1 little bit better with his behavoiour. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymarcbadz continues to edit against discussion on other pages as well and threatening to delete them! [51] "Inconsistent with other sports; If you keep reverting my edits, I'll delete the page right now." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrillLyle reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summaries only -- issue is of harassment by User:BrillLyle (see below)

Comments:
User:BrillLyle has been reverting my edits, patronizingly dismissing them and refusing to indicate what exactly was the problem and/or to rectify anything in particular with which he took issue. Instead he simply reverted my edits three times before 3RR tolled. On my talk page (see [57]), he left this ancient RFC which has nothing to do with anything in recent memory just to try to viciously embarrass me by scavenging through my past. I made mistakes, I served my time, and that's it. I could have changed my username but I haven't. Quis separabit? 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite confused here. This person is a known edit warring sockpuppetter and difficult editor. He said he had discussed the edits he made but there was no Talk page discussions on the page in question or on my Talk page. And when I wrote on his Talk page here he deleted the section -- which I have never even seen before. My issue was that I have had pages that I have worked very hard on changed by this editor in the past and he has behaved in a very uncivil way. This experience is the same. I question why the edits were made, especially as there is no value add, the dates on the entire page are consistent, and he added little to no content. Why does he get to behave this way? I can walk away from the pages he works on after I do but it seems patently unfair. To be called out for this here is also not ideal. I had thought to report his editing as being disruptive and against good will principles here but thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt and not follow through. Now I regret that. This whole issue is pointless. I will just walk away. But this editor is a problem. He drives away editors and doesn't add content. It's all sort of a nightmare. Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" He said he had discussed the edits he made but there was no Talk page discussions on the page in question or on my Talk page" -- NO. I said I had communicated via edit summary just as BrillLyle did. It's 2016, and BrillLyle should really forget about things that happened on Wikipedia up to and more than a decade ago and concentrate on the present. Since being restored to editing privileges a decade or so ago (can't exactly remember what year, it's that long ago) I have not been blocked once. I do the best I can and have the commendations to prove it, on my talk page in my archives. Quis separabit? 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever fantasy you want to believe. I am walking away from this page -- a page I improved significantly -- because of your behavior. Do you have any ability to examine your own behavior here as being unpleasant? I don't care how many gold stars you get, it's a lump of coal from me. BrillLyle (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pennyerrs reported by User:Velella (Result: Sock blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Yeah, how do you know that, Im not and you cant prove it."
12:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Only Marche, I added Porto Recanati, the town where his ancestor came from."
12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
Consecutive edits made from 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) to 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
1. 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Honours and achievements */"
2. 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Lionel Messi . using TW"

Pennyerrs Confirmed and indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: )

Page:

User being reported:

AdamDeanHall (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked 48 hours, with warning)

Page: Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717935580 by Yobol (talk) Why don't you explain your objection in the talk page? My edit is in response to the request in the section "The lede is a mess""
15:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ re-added material that got "lost" in editing/reverting"
04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "revert yobol lede edit. Nuffield has weight .I will elaborate in talk page"
02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a report done by many expert in an authoritative organization. needs to have its due weight. (whether you like their conclusions or not)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See this diff and the subsequent two more warnings on their talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk page of article

Comments:

Numerous 3RR warnings on their talk page. Not even more reverts prior to this that do not fit within the past 24 hours. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Anna Frodesiak with a warning that future instances will result in an extended block. Mike V • Talk 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.154.101.95 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: )

Page: April 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.154.101.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "As requested by Rms125a, removed references and changed link to point reader towards those scholarly references. Rms125a please answer on Talk Page what you mean by "speculation" - your link below is dysfunctional."
14:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed external link as requested by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Hope everyone is satisfied now."
10:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "It is not one writer, but a scholarly survey of 100 (one hundred) writers. Read the reference."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on April 3. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Two warnings given. Amccann421 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Amccann421 accuses me of edit-warring, saying "Please do not add or change content, as you did at April 3, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."

However the other editors have pointed out today to me that in fact it is NOT permitted to cite references/sources in April 3 or in any other Date-of-Year pages. Hence I removed my references. Unfortunately, now Amccann421 has appeared on the scene and is criticising me for removing the refs and accusing me of edit warring. Please confirm, on the April 3 Talk page, that you have got it wrong. And please do not further disrupt the discussion and editing process unless you have a valid point to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.95 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Violetnese reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: )

Page: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Violetnese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717993658 by Paul Erik (talk) Don't listen to him, I am them, there are too many Idols."
22:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717987271 by Bbb23 (talk) Come on, keep this one. Rumors/gossip not this!"
21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717982508 by Bbb23 (talk)"
~~21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "He is known for his falsetto!"~~ Not a revert.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Here they warn an administrator about edit warring, suggesting they're well-aware of the penalties. Bbb23 responded with a warning, though (I assume) on the wrong user talk page. clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clpo13: When I post to Drmies's Talk page it is never a warning, except when it's about the unhealthy effects of eating bacon while watching college football. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite warnings about adding unsupported comments, this user has edit warred with two editors about Gordon-Levitt being a falsetto and/or countertenor. clpo13_(talk) 22:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Falsettos right now, don't take him off. violet nese 23:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this board is about conduct, not content, but I can't resist. First, you can be a bass and sing in falsetto. Second, having a "high" tenor voice does not mean you're singing in falsetto. Third - and I'm not sure where countertenor came from in this silliness - a countertenor is not the same as a man singing in falsetto. Fourth, regardless of anything else, how on earth did this editor determine that this piece of trivia belongs in the lead? Frankly, WP:CIR is more applicable here than edit-warring (fwiw, she didn't breach 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you're right. I assumed this was a revert from the edit summary. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. http://www.instagram.com/ryanjkirkland. violet nese 23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Look what Ryan just saw on Wikipedia! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA. violet nese 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one! violet nese 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 514: / Line 514: @@
 ::::That's right. http://www.instagram.com/ryanjkirkland. [[User:Violetnese|<font style="color:#cc99ff; background-color:darkorchid">violet]]</font>[[User_talk:Violetnese|<font style="color:violet; background-color:darkorchid">nese</font>]] 23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 "Look what Ryan just saw on Wikipedia! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA. [[User:Violetnese|<font style="color:#cc99ff; background-color:darkorchid">violet]]</font>[[User_talk:Violetnese|<font style="color:violet; background-color:darkorchid">nese</font>]] 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one! [[User:Violetnese|<font style="color:#cc99ff; background-color:darkorchid">violet]]</font>[[User_talk:Violetnese|<font style="color:violet; background-color:darkorchid">nese</font>]] 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards