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 Jabbsworth (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 25 November 2011 (→User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48h): rsp). 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:WilliamJE reported by User:Lhb1239(Result: 31h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Juli Inkster

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]
    • 5th revert: [5]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    • Comment: All of the above edit warring was done during and after the same editor had placed the following personal attacks on the talk page of editor he had the dispute with:

    He has also been reported to the Wikikette board here.

    Two editors, crunch and the above one, keep editing out the following


    LPGA Tour playoff record (6-4)

    No. Year Tournament Opponent(s) Result
    1 1984 Nabisco Dinah Shore United States Pat Bradley Won with par on first extra hole
    2 1986 Lady Keystone Open United States Cindy Hill, United States Debbie Massey Won with par on first extra hole
    3 1988 Crestar Classic United States Rosie Jones, United States Betsy King
    United States Nancy Lopez,     		Won with eagle on first extra hole
    4 1988 Atlantic City Classic United States Beth Daniel Won with par on first extra hole
    5 1992 Nabisco Dinah Shore United States Dottie Mochrie Lost to par on first extra hole
    6 1992 U.S. Women's Open United States Patty Sheehan Lost 18-hole playoff (Sheehan:72, Inkster:74)
    7 1997 Samsung World Championship of Women's Golf Sweden Helen Alfredsson, United States Kelly Robbins Won with birdie on first extra hole
    8 2000 LPGA Championship Italy Stefania Croce Won with par on second extra hole
    9 2007 SemGroup Championship South Korea Mi-Hyun Kim Lost to par on first extra hole
    10 2008 SemGroup Championship United States Paula Creamer Lost to birdie on second extra hole

    That wasn't in the player's article Until the last day[10] and for the citations, they aren't done in win boxes. Crunch knows that, why isn't a citation added here when he edited a win box here[11] when that box was just added[12] today? That edit he did was done before the Inkster reverts.[13] I'm being consistent, putting in legit material, and people are reverting without looking at what they're doing and or at the same time conveniently forgetting their own edit histories.- William 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor making the case against me really is so wrong and he keeps making incorrect statements which I challenged on his talk page. Look at his first listing of me violating 3RR

    Carefully study that edit. Do you see I put in new information aka a playoff results chart that's seen in golfer articles from Tiger Woods down to Marty Fleckman. I can list 30 edits similar to this one where I put in playoff boxes for golfers. I'll list every single one of them, including this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beth_Daniel&oldid=461638402} where Crunch wrongly reverted my work. Ask editor Tewapack, who have had run-ins with, if what Crunch did was right or wrong? His answer seems apparent, he made structural fixes to my edit but left it up.

    When editors accuse me of 3rr for violations after a warning and falsely accuse me of a reversion that never happened., I get a very strong opinion of people arranging a kangaroo court. Especially when you consider this editor's own actions of deleting the playoff box himself and then accusing me of 3rr on his talk page after I was warned. That didn't happen, check my history.

    He called me a fool for correcting mistakes. I called him an imbecile for repeatedly not looking at what he is doing and repeating the same mistakes. One time is a accident, 4 times(3 of which happened in a very short time span) is a clear pattern.- William 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked — 31 hours. Editor has reverted four times in 24 hours. (The edit history shows him removing 5810 bytes from the article four times since November 20). He was asked to promise to stop warring and apologize for personal attacks, on his talk page. Neither occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.32.129.220 reported by User:Ute in DC (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Backyard Brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 96.32.129.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25], [26]

    Comments:

    User:Emerson 07 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)

    Page: History of the French line of succession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
    Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Emerson 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Slow but persistent edit-warring on several articles, just below 3RR:

    On History of the French line of succession

    On Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    Emerson 07 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account [29] who has been persistently pushing for a fringe-within-the-fringe political position on French royalism. He persistently misuses talk pages for arguing the "TRUTH" of his agenda ([30], [31], [32], [33] [34]), uses disruptive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tactics to push his views ([35], [36], [37]), and has upheld a slow but persistent revert-war over several related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blusts back at it on Glücksgas Stadium talk page

    User:Blusts reported by User:Jhortman (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Glücksgas Stadium (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Blusts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: orig revision by Jhortman

    • Original edit/addition of machine-translated material: diff
    • 1st revert: diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (see comments)

    Comments:

    This user currently only has 1 revert on this round, but has a long history of edit warring on Glücksgas Stadium and Talk:Glücksgas Stadium. he adds the same machine-translated, unsourced content over and over, then engages in a revert war without any discussion when his edits are changed in any way. He also randomly deletes items on the Talk page. He has been blocked multiple times for this behavior in the past, so I am reporting it again in the hopes of nipping this in the bud.

    You are dealing with a sock of User:Fox53, aka Kay Körner, who keeps reappearing uner differnt user accounts from time to time, gets blocked and reappears again after a break. He tends to edit the same group of pages, associated with East Germany, especially the SV Dynamo. Most of the times nowadays he behaves himself, compare to the old times at least. If he gets blocked on this account he will just come back on another. Calistemon (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:Robertcurrey (Result: Self ban for a week accepted)

    Page: Scorpio (astrology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments:

    The editor has a history of blanking astrology-related content, proposing that the subject has no authorities and arguing that “Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found”. [38]

    Other editors have responded that the sources used are not problematic in reporting what astrologers or those who write about the subject believe. [39]

    He refuses to allow attempts to improve content in the section on the mythology on Scorpio (astrology), and is constantly reverting information that is well known, widely reported and reliably sourced. His edits leave the page with only a brief inclusion of poor quality content, which is disputed for its accuracy and lacks reliable references.

    The editor has been warned that his attitude is antagonistic and has a history of causing offense to other editors working on pages related to astrology, by his insistence that the subject is “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit” and its sources are as worthless as “used-ass-wipe”.

    11 Nov
    16 Nov
    11 Nov
    16 Nov

    He has been asked to specify what sources he objects to and why, but refuses to do this, while claiming in his edit summaries that other editors should ‘see talk’. Robert Currey talk 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I appear to have lost count. Changes were made to two sections of the article, and I didn't realize the latter also reverts reverted material that I had already reverted in my first reversion. The latter three reverts were made in response to an ip hopper that reverted 5 times with no discussion on talk page. I reverted three times and stopped, thinking that I had reached my limit at that point.
    FWIW, this is my first time I've been brought to #RRN. I'm very careful about not exceeding 3RR. I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week.
    As to the charge that I have not discussed this on the talk page, there is a discussion about this section on progress on talk page concerning sourcing and other issues, and a clear consensus that the section would not be added until adequately sourced. I spent a good bit of my own time finding additional sources and posted them in that discussion.
    As for calling astrology "bullshit", the language was perhaps a bit colorful, but accuarate and does not cross the civility boundary in my opinion. No personal attacks were made. Nevertheless, I stopped using colorful language when I was asked to by the editors involved a week ago. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The sudden appearance of several reverting anons on that page is disturbing. Semi? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. I was going to request one myself but didn't have time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not blocked'Result:' "I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week." This offer is accepted (since there appears to be an apology as well, and its a first offence). Violations of the self ban should be brought back here. I have semi-protected the article for 3 days only. --BozMo talk 13:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:Weazie (Result: blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Comments:
    These are a cluster of partial reverts. But demonstrate a pattern to prefer edits/reverts rather than discussing on talk page. --Weazie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Niel Mokerjee reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 31 hours)

    Page: Bāngāli BRAMHāN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Niel Mokerjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [52]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57], [58], [59]

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

    A new editor, who created a page for a subject that already has an existing article Bengali Brahmins. Another editor than myself redirected their preferred name, full of unorthodox capitalizations to say the least, and informed them at their talk. The offending editor worked at the actual article for a bit, until it became clear that they couldn't use their alternate spelling in the article[60]. User has yet to acknowledge a talkpage or edit summary message and are edit warring to keep the duplicate article with their preferred naming. Heiro 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Their alternate spelling seems to be to push this religiously based Facebook page or group, which seems to be the only use of this spelling (besides us now) according to Google. Heiro 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fatima.new reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: page deleted)

    Page: Ahmed elSeyoufi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fatima.new (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

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

    It's not a content dispute. Maybe this is the wrong place to report it? User is edit-warring with the bot over removal of speedy deletion template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Page deleted and salted as copyvio. No need to block at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Webwires reported by User:Hollyckuhno (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [66]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

    Comments:

    • Comment: This user acts as if he/she is the only one that could improve the article. Guess what, this user reverted my edits just because for his opinion his version is better. I thought wikipedia is a collaborative program? - Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48h)

    Page: Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 15:36, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 462229191 by Packerfansam: stable versaion - brd. using TW")
    2. 19:12, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): This weight as regards his jewisn ness or lack of it was discussed over length andf I am in my rights to brd it - the talkpage is whewre youy should make your cas...")
    3. 19:32, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please do no t tag team - the stable version was discussed at lenfghth - BRD is on the talkpage. using TW")
    4. 19:49, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please stop tag teaming - BRD - well discussed content - the talkpage is where you should make your case. using TW")
    5. 20:01, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk): No - WP;BRD is ihn action- on the talkpage - stop tag teaming without discussion. using TW")
    6. 20:24, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): Under discussion - on the talk page - yes you. using TW")

    Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 6 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)Time of warning to editor (as prescribed)? Discussions on article talk page concerning the material (which seem quite notable by their absence)? Absent such, and considering that there are BLP issues involved, I fear that the evidence is less than compelling that sanctions are needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting Rob was unaware that he was edit-warring? I held off when it was only 4 reverts -- but by the time it's 5 6 it's not plausible that his "finger slipped". Oh, and the "BLP issues" is a canard (look it up) -- not even Rob is claiming it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And now that there is an additional revert after this report was filed, surely the question of a warning is moot. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no "BLP issues involved" here, since the material itself is unchanged, merely re-organized. Please review the actual changes. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • - reply - This is a tag teaming report. This user reporting has made three edits today - one to revert against me - one to make this report and one to tell me about it. Another of the tag teamers - User:Plot spoilers never having any interest or edits at all to Ed Miliband his edit history clearly shows he is a tag team reverter. I have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion but none of them have posted a single post - the content that User:Jayjg is desirous of altering was discussed over length and its totally normal to request WP:BRD on the talkpage. With the lack of discussion - I requested full protection on RFPP but it as yet was not actioned. I am the only person that worked to raise the Ed Miliband article to GA status - here is my report at RFPP - full protect request. Here is the Ed Miliband talkpage history, as you will see not a single one of them has posted there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wants to change an article, it is for them to explain why, if reverted. Given the lengthy previous discussions on this issue, all involved should be aware of the need for dialogue - this inappropriate tag-teaming seems more harmful to Wikipedia in the long run than a single violation of WP:3RR. Sadly though, some contributors clearly think pushing their agendas more important than Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) 6RR violations, reliance on an essay to claim a "right" to revert uncontroversial copyedits without any rationale whatsoever, and false accusations of "tag-teaming" and "pushing an agenda", are far more "harmful to Wikipedia in the long run" than any corrective action meted out to Off2riorob here. The last issue of the false accusations also applies directly to you, Andy - and please don't use my pointing that out as an excuse to call editors here "idiots" or tell them to go fuck themselves. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for confirming once again how committed you are to pursuing your agenda, and how little concern you have for the actual issues here. Now explain to me where I was wrong to state that the correct response to a reverted edit is talk-page dialogue, initiated by the person wishing to make the change - or are we supposed to respond without knowing why they are proposing the change in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently experienced a tag-team-like attack on my edits from Off2riorob and Collect at Matt Drudge and associated BLPN and ANI kerfuffles. Strangely enough, they seem to be showing mutual support on this page too.  Jabbsworth  23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think your post at BLP/N is going to get you points here" To wit:
    [Gewn Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading.
    The only problem is absolutely no one backed your "reading" of WP:BLP at the BLP/N noticeboard. Wikipedia:BLPN#Matt_Drudge. Not just O2RR and I - but also Nomoskedasticity (hardly a tag team with O2RR!), the other person in the present case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. Several editors opined that the material should be boiled down to "a careful, well-sourced sentence" because of weight issues. As usual, you seem to miss the point.  Jabbsworth  00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR is a bright line; no exemptions apply here. T. Canens (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.99.127.20 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: )

    Page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.99.127.20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 174.99.127.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 22:19, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ It is entirely inappropriate to refactor other's comments on any talk page. Please stop.")
    2. 22:26, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ r")
    3. 22:29, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322532 by Yworo (talk)")
    4. 22:35, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322918 by Yworo (talk)")

    Also broke 3RR on a second page, Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse:

    1. 22:31, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322671 by Yworo (talk)")
    2. 22:34, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322900 by Yworo (talk)")
    3. 22:46, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462324224 by Yworo (talk)")
    4. 22:53, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462325398 by Yworo (talk)")
    5. 23:02, 24 November 2011 (Undid revision 462326313 by Sjones23 (talk))
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Comment: User repeatedly undoing striking of their personal attacks.

    —Yworo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin: I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but I would ask that you also look at Yworo's reverts on the same page. He imposes his interpretation of "personal attacks" (even though he has made several of them himself today), and claims that he is allowed to repeatedly strike my comments on a talk page. In fact, I won't be surprised if he removes my comments I am making right now. If I'm guilty of edit warring, he is equally guilty. And that's not to mention his history of incivility to IPs and newly registered editors. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking of personal attacks is explicitly allowed. You were informed of this but did not read up on it. You're clearly in the wrong here. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    First, they were not personal attacks. I was simply responding to your own false accusations and personal attacks on me on a page in which I am allowed to defend myself. Secondly, you reverted as much or more than I did. Both of us (and that includes you, Yworo) need to leave things alone and let an admin decide this. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, you reverted four times on two different pages one page and five times on another. I have not reverted four times on any page. Yworo (talk) Yworo (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yworo, let the admin do the math. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No. My math is correct and you can stop ordering me around right now. Enjoy your upcoming month long block. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop screwing around with other editors' comments. If the IP is a sock, have him dealt with as such. But don't try to alter his comments. Just add comments of your own demonstrating that he's incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: )

    Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CentristFiasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Reverted_a_POV_edit

    Comments: This user is very excited to rewrite the lede to reflect what he thinks is true about the world. He's not excited to add sources, or to discuss the article in any form but his preferred form. I have reverted him only once - there is no apparent support for his bold edit (well, twice, but I assumed one of his reverts was mistaken)


    User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Becritical (Result: )

    Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CentristFiasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=462338957"