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 Griffy013 (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 13 February 2013 (→User:Griffy013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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:Edge4life42 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: Warned)

    Page: George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Edge4life42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 5th revert: [5]
    • 6th revert: [6]
    • 7th revert: [7]
    • 8th revert: [8]
    • 9th revert: [9]
    • 10th revert: [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2, 3

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George_W._Bush#Worst_president

    Comments:
    The user has been trying to push these changes based on his belief that historians are too liberal. There has been steady consensus against his proposed changes and a phalanx of editors are opposed. Edge4Life42 stopped participating in the talk page conversation on December 13, but is continuing his edit war. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. After two months of nothing, they've made one edit. Granted, it appears to be an attempt to inject the same rejected change, but it's not like they were blocked before or even officially warned by an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking it out. I didn't know admins' warnings were more meaningful than the rest of ours. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm noticing now that Bencherlite actually is a sysop. Was his warning not official enough? I don't understand what standard we're supposed to be using here. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the circumstances. Let's assume a non-admin warns someone they have or are about to violate 3RR. If the warning is accurate, it's no different from an admin's warning. However, in this instance, Edge has not violated 3RR; nor have they even edit-warred, at least not recently. If, they had been blocked in December for edit-warring, then a resumption of their conduct might be grounds for a block. Alternatively, if they been warned by an admin (that is not the kind of warning that a non-admin can rightfully issue as they don't have the power to block) and they stopped their behavior, then a resumption of that same behavior might also be grounds for a block. Here, I don't see any of that. (Nor do I see any warning by User:Bencherlite on Edge's talk page.) I am closing this now as declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes more sense. Thanks for checking it out. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Subsequent to my decline, Edge's change to the article was reverted by another user. Edge reverted right back. I have restored the material on the Bush page to the December 2012 consensus. I have also warned Edge that any more reverts will result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Warnings, move protection)

    Page: Abraham (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Wikipedia:CHRISTIANPOV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    • 1st revert: [12] removes islam and baha'i
    • 2nd revert: [13] removes islam and baha'i
    • 3rd revert: [14] removes islam and baha'i
    • 4th revert: [15] removes baha'i

    move warring:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20], [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22], [23]

    Comments:

    The definition of 3RR is more than three reverts on a single page in a 24 hour period. StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish you would stop these sneaky and dishonest reports. You know very well that the 1st revert of your second grouping occurred five days before the other three. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, 5 editors supported the page move, you were the only one opposed so consensus was against you. Pass a Method talk 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: Both Pass a Method and StAnselm are warned not to revert again at Abraham (disambiguation) before getting a talk page consensus on some appropriate page. There is also a dispute about moving an essay from user space to Wikipedia space. After a complaint at AN, there is now a formal move discussion regarding the essay. Another admin has move protected the essay pending the outcome of that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:202.62.104.17 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: 48h)

    Page: Khmu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
    Khmuic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
    Peopling of Laos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 202.62.104.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24], [25]

    Comments:

    User is repeatedly posting bullshit. He's copied from peopling of Thailand, substituted "Khmu" for "Mon-Khmer", and posted it as a content fork in three articles, claiming for example (because of the name substitution) that the Khmu have been around for 40,000 years, not bothering to correct for the Mon, who have never lived in Laos, etc. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 48 hours. The IP editor has never left a talk comment or an edit summary. He did not reply to an invitation to respond here, but kept on going. I am not qualified to tell if these changes are really nonsense, but the single-mindedness and lack of discussion is obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Animegirl14 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Pretty Cure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Animegirl14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [26]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

    Comments:

    Last month, I cut a lot of content from Pretty Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In the ensuing time there were one-off attempts at restoring the content by IP editors, but these were reverted. In the past 24 hours (give or take), Animegirl14 has repeatedly restored the article to a previous state. I reverted the edits three times, as there were other helpful edits to the article performed in the interrim that Animegirl14 removed, and she has inserted a factual accuracy not present in previous editions of the page. After the third time, I went to her user talk to say why I had made the changes and also warned her about the edit warring rule. After that I did some other cosmetic changes to the page. Two hours ago she reverts again, erasing any work I've done to the article, removing the valid information that was added, and reinserting the wrong information, so I've made the report here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The violation of 3RR is clear. Ryulong, I've not blocked you, but your last series of edits could also be construed as a breach, even though you apparently don't think it is. I'm taking into account your good faith efforts to talk to the other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm not allowed to add in things she removed by blindly reverting? Or, as I've just done, fixed the factual inaccuracy she inserted? I would rather the article be bereft of the massive color coded table that had been inserted by an IP editor last year and diligently kept by other editors.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also restored my cosmetic changes that do not affect the 15k worth of content previously removed from the page. Should, after the 24 hour period pass, Animegirl14 perform another revert on the article to restore the previous content, despite the bulk of the page that I believe she had issues with remaining in place, what should be done then?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there is an exemption, you are limited as to what you can revert, even if it's not a wholesale revert of someone else's changes. You'd have to seek input from other editors who agree with your position so someone else can revert based on that consensus. As for Animegirl14, a resumption of edit-warring to impose her version right after expiration of a block would not be viewed favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems odd that content that was not evidently problematic to the reverter (Animegirl14 sure wants that table in the article) isn't allowed when it's removed in a blind revert as the user has clearly been doing. I have opened up a dialog on the talk page concerning some of the content, but if nobody responds that's basically a sign that no one cares and you have free reign to make the changes you want. And then if I do that, and Animegirl14 comes back to restore the edits I'm back in this stupid cycle. It's clear that she's never going to respond to any sort of message left on her talk page. It hasn't happened in the past and it's not happening now. And then I'm back here because she's edit warring, being unresponsive, and not editing the project in any other way than to restore this one table and the unnecessarily long series descriptions. Then what? I know this is rhetorical and I might not be assuming good faith, but I doubt that this girl will even realize she's been blocked unless the content is removed, again, in the next 24 hours and she tries to restore it, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration, but you, too, must abide by the rules. My comments were intended to help you understand that and to avoid the possibility of sanctions in the future in these kinds of situations.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So what am I to do when the change gains consensus and she reverts again? Or if she reverts anyway because she doesn't see the page exactly as she left it (likely reinserting the wrong kanji I've deleted again)?—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed the problem of her coming back from her block and editing inappropriately above.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ratnakar.kulkarni reported by User:Lowkeyvision (Result: Declined)

    Page: Bhagyalakshmi temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ratnakar.kulkarni (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagyalakshmi_temple#Politics_and_Recetism

    The user responded by stating: "I do have the opportunity, I can cross 3RR to revert vandals like you"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagyalakshmi_temple#Politics_and_Recetism

    Comments: The user agreed that the description of the riots dont belong on main page, but instead on a stub page, but then tried to put the onus of creating the new stub on me. I warned him to stop reverting and another user tried to help but this user just wont stop reverting. He has violated the 3RR rule and expresses blatant disregard for the 3RR rule.

    Note. There's been no breach of 3RR by either of you. Instead, there's been a long-running battle over different material in the article for quite some time. The two of you are battling over another article as well, which is currently at WP:DRN. Perhaps you should take this dispute to DRN. At this point, you both run the risk of being blocked for edit-warring (not breaching 3RR), or the article may be locked so neither of you (or anyone else) can edit it until these disputes are resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined. There's been nothing further on the article since my note above. Although I'm declining the report, I will keep the article on my watchlist and may take action in the future if it is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lvivske reported by User:Nug (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    • 1st revert: 23:04, 9 February 2013‎ (Reverted to revision 535161972 by Joe Bodacious: user is trying to redefine sovereignty to fit his argument on an RfC. (TW)) [34]
    • 2nd revert: 23:15, 9 February 2013‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Nug (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Lvivske. (TW)) [35]
    • 3rd revert: 20:58, 10 February 2013‎ (Reverted to revision 537456976 by Lvivske: WP:SYN synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. (TW)) [36]
    • 4th revert: 21:28, 10 February 2013‎ (removing WP:SYN disruptive edit form lead, inserting full quote from source to appropriate section) [37]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk:Sovereignty#.22Legitimate.22_sovereignty - Lvivske threatened to start edit warring if I didn't stop adding reliably sourced material, as if he WP:OWNs the article

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sovereignty#.22Legitimate.22_sovereignty

    Comments:
    User:Lvivske seems intent on characterising my additions of reliably sourced text as vandalism, then claimed it was SYNTH. I'm just trying to contribute to the article while he is bringing gobs of bad faith assumptions. --Nug (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said I would start edit warring, I just saw the trend happening with your edits and wanted to prevent it from escalating. Also, your diffs are from separate edit sequences, not subject to 3RR of a single article entry. The first 2 were regarding the lede you were altering, which you also 2R'd 1, 2; the second 2 diffs were when you started adding WP:SYN material (your 4th diff cited wasn't even a revert, it was shifting your source into an appropriate section).--Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I only reverted once, the second diff you link is a new sentence I inserted and subsequently moved to the end of the lede[38]. --Nug (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. They are similar, and use the same source, and insert the same point into the front of the lede....--Львівське (говорити) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverts are still reverts, even if they apply to different text in the same article, and thus subject to WP:3RR. Note that Lvivske is subject to an indefinite 1RR/48hr sanction in another topic area, so edit warring seems to be a persistent issue for him. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how it works. And if you want to sling mud, Nug has previous interaction bans due to conflicts on Eastern European topics; the Eastern European mailing list fiasco; and subsequent EE related topic ban(s). There, now we're all aired out.--Львівське (говорити) 02:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I'd like to note that I asked an admin how to properly file a dispute resolution like this a few hours prior to this being opened against me. Preemptive strike?--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belchfire reported by User:216.81.94.68 (Result: No violation)

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


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


    Comments:
    Belchfire is coming off his 4th "vacation" and has started edit warring, and even 3rr in this case as well, again. He even tried bullying a editor on their talk page with a warning, something common for belchfire to do. Blechfire has proven he has no regard to editing in good faith and its either his way or none. Please review his past time offs and do not take my word for it, his actions speak very loudly.

    User:75.183.144.91 reported by - MrX (Result: 2 weeks)

    Page: Bryan Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 75.183.144.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 21:00, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Views and activities */")
    2. 21:06, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537763254 by ClueBot NG (talk)")
    3. 21:23, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537764438 by Eyesnore (talk)the youtube video In question has Bryan Fischer actually saying this, on his radio show, if videos and radio broadcasts are unreliable then everything is")
    4. 23:08, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")
    5. 01:44, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The editor was blocked for almost identical disruptive editing a little more than two weeks ago. They also don't seem to be very fond of the advice that a couple of editors, including myself, have tried to provide to them. —- MrX 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3abos reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Heterophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 3abos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to: [39]

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

    1. 00:17, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537789241 by Dawn Bard (talk) The references ARE reliable and do not violate. Nevertheless there is no reason to undo the changes.")
    2. 00:32, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537790807 by Josh3580 (talk) I do not see how opinion is placed in this article? if there is simply remove it.")
    3. 00:35, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537791297 by Eyesnore (talk)IF there is "opinion" in this article, remove the opinion not the whole article. We are supposed to be neutral?")
    4. 00:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537792172 by Josh3580 (talk)This does adhere.")
    5. 05:56, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537822793 by Insomesia (talk)Discussed with various authors and editors. Please see talk page that has link.")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • User had also received a "final warning" for violating NPOV on this same article [40]

    Comments:

    It's also worth noting that an IP showed up and made the same reversion as 3abos after 3abos made their 5th reversion [41][42] Dawn Bard (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eaglestorm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

    Page: How I Met Your Mother (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Reversions:

    Diffs of edit warring warnings: [43][44]

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

    Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [46][47][48]

    Comments:
    Back on 22 January, an IP made a minor, and reasonable, change to an episode summary at How I Met Your Mother (season 8), replacing vague information with a specific point about the episode plot.[49] This was later reverted by another IP, who claimed it was a spoiler.[50] As removal was contrary to WP:SPOILER, it was reverted.[51] On 2 February, Eaglestorm reverted the change without explanation.[52] That edit was reverted, with the editor stating quite correctly in his edit summary, "Summaries are supposed to summarize, not tease". Eaglestorm's next visit was 9 February,[53] and since then has been edit-warring over the content. Multiple attempts have been made on his talk page to engage him in discussion,[54][55][56] but these have proven fruitless. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page,[57] and invited Eaglestorm to the discussion,[58] to no avail. After I initiated the talk page discussion, an IP posted to my talk page, explaining that Eaglestorm will not engage in discussion.[59] This claim seems well supported by Eaglestorm's talk page history. There are numerous cases where editors have attempted to engage him,[60][61] but he refuses, instead simply deleting requests with inappropriate edit summaries,[62][63][64][65] calling editors trolls, socks and SPAs. Even my attempts to engage him were deleted as "nothing more than prodding at the behest of some SPA editor",[66] and the edit-warring warning was reverted as "unjustified warning at the behest of SPA".[67] Eaglestorm has now posted at my talk page,[68] but still has not engaged in any discussion over his contentious edits, and his 5th revert above clearly indicates that he intends to continue his edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aboutstyes reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Aboutstyes (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: [73]

    I also informed the editor of the discussion here, but the editor simply removed the notice without commenting.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] This user has switched accounts several times. Previous incarnations were User:Cliptgenus, User:Enemyusuar and others. Editor arrives, makes this change and others. The edits are not usually worthy of an SPI, but if block evasion happens, I will take it up.

    I have started a discussion at the project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Image in the grounds/stadium section.
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. (Your diff about trying to resolve the issue isn't; perhaps it's a mistake. In any case, this editor doesn't seem like he wants to talk to anyone about anything.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kpopnz reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: )

    Page: File:Sam & Cat Title Screen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kpopnz (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: [79]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

    Comments: Uploading show logo images from fan-sites and replacing an official image from the site of the show creator. No communications


    User:Griffy013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

    Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Griffy013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [81]

    • 02:51, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537946830 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (Because no specific reason given for revert of cited material)")
    • 02:56, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "(Reverted deletion of cited entry without explaination)")
    • 03:01, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981124 by Bbb23 (talk) (more specificity is needed - there are many sources only delete information that is improperly sourced not a wholesale deletion ))")
    • 03:09, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981780 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (your editing to make the language more neutral is welcomed - i did not write this - but there are many cited items in this entry)")
    • 03:15, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537982575 by Bbb23 (talk) (be specific and we can talk about it - you are repeatedly deleting a large portion of materials with multiple citations)")
    • 03:19, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537983007 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (again, this appears to be cited - is there is an issue with language - change to neutral language)")


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

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

    The user keeps reverting. This is a sensitive WP:BLP article and there are serious problems with the material that was initially added by an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He is reverting a large amount of cited information from multiple sources without specific reason or a line item edit. Has not responded on talk page.--griffy013 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (EST)
    Despite taking the time to repeatedly remove my re-edits no one will talk to me on the talk page of the page in question. It is removal without discussion.--griffy013 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (EST)
    I attempted both to talk to you and to warn you on your talk page, as the diff shows. Also, RedPen tried to explain to you the BLP problems inherent in the material. However, despite three editors reverting you, you continued to insist. I might add that you reverted twice more since I posted the list of reverts above. I'm going off-wiki now, so I will have no more comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal talk page is not the place for a discussion of the page. It does not help future editors at all. See the Vargas talk page. My continued efforts at re-editing smaller chunks of the material you originally removed have been again removed without discussion - the revert is of different, re-edited material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffy013 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=537995482"