Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 24 April 2023 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467) (bot). 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 {{

    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:58.178.6.250 reported by User:Oblivy (Result: Blocked 2 years)

    Page: List of Chinese Filipinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 58.178.6.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 09:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) to 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
      1. 09:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 09:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Chinese Filipinos."
    2. 22:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Chinese Filipinos."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 07:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) "/* BLP Verifiability */ new section"

    Comments:

    Editor appears to be using two IPV6 socks: 2403:4800:24b5:ca01:788b:1535:d132:555e 2403:4800:24b5:ca01:d568:ef77:7538:c99b

    These IPv6 editors have made changes in the past few days which were reverted for not complying with the list definition (requires cite, or wikilink to article supporting inclusion). IPv4 and IPv6 addresses also made edits close in time to Germans in the Philippines and Koreans in the Philippines Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 years With this extensive a block record, there's really no reason to reach the edit-warring question as long as the edits are demonstratively disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also blocked the IPV6 range for both those IPs for a month (it does seem like other editors have used it constructively in the past). Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Note that there appears to be block evasion activity from 120.18.78.182 which is registered to Vodaphone NSW (geographically similar to this IP, same registrant as 120.18.189.237 which also made similar edits on same pages). Left a comment on the talk page about block evasion, nothing do do right now it seems. Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I checked the range and there would be collateral damage. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:43.249.196.218 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Banker's lamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 43.249.196.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodlands_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1151148590

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Types_of_lamp&diff=prev&oldid=1151147993

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banker%27s_lamp&diff=prev&oldid=1151147572

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodlands_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1151147467


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:43.249.196.218&diff=prev&oldid=1151147190


    Comments:

    Harassing other users in edit summaries as well. Equine-man (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Am real lucky that my ISP switched it tolnight so I can try and beat a bit of sence into WP!!! 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You would as well if you were fustrated by the poor editing decisions. 43.249.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you have thousands of edits (1), yet you don't know what a stub is? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually over 100,000 logged in edits. I know all about stub articles. 43.249.196.218 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide us with your logged in username. Equine-man (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-. What sort of fool do you tink I am! 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STUB says "Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable. ". 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Crystal-clear 3RR violation on Category:Types of lamp. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Mostly for the attacks. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zoroastryan reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: All your base are belong to us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) to 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
      1. 06:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Added media format: TV shows"
      2. 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Re-added deleted edit"
    2. 02:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Re-added another example of the use of this meme in popular media after it was removed for seemingly no reason. View reference video, the quote is clearly used."
    3. 21:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) "Added an example of the meme being used in Futurama, with reference video as evidence"
    4. 21:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Mentions in media */Added an example of the meme being used in Futurama."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on All your base are belong to us."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Zoroastryan started a discussion on my talk page, I replied, but before I finished it they already reinstated their edit once more.

    Comments:

    New user keeps on adding

    WP:OR on a meme mentioned in a TV show. I'm already at 3RR, I apologize. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:FlameCelestial reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Sun Moon Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FlameCelestial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1151184447
    2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1150650596
    3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1149669970
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlameCelestial&oldid=1151190441 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sun Moon Lake." Warning issued by LVTW2
    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:

    User is currently engaged in an edit war on the Sun Moon Lake, and also performing disruptive edits in other different pages which closely related to Taiwan, against longstanding consensus in Wikipedia.

    LVTW2 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
    3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:103.50.20.132 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked)

    Page:

    talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )
    User being reported:     103.50.20.132 (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]
    4. [5]

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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Siteblocked for intentional disruption. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gaura79 reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Gaura79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Stop edit warring and discuss instead"
    2. 11:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Rvv to the 24 Feb version before edits warring has started. Let's reach consensus and then add material to the article"
    3. 08:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Reverted to pre-war version of the article. Consensus should be reached first"
    4. 11:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) "This is also irrelevant and not supported by good quality RS. Bhaktivedanta said many things, but here should be cited only those views with have been properly analysed in RS"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Views */"

    Comments:

    Edit warring with his whitewashed content removals even after warning. Editorkamran (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheBoysLH reported by User:Nikkimaria (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]
    5. [13]
    6. [14] (note also personal attacks in edit summaries)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    above report is so very one sided, proving wikipedia is consored "encyclopedia" i am only reporting the truth, the other party started war editting, vandalizing correct oliver hardy info, he is going against what is given and i provided sources for all my edits many times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoysLH (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarnetteD it's clear this "contributior" has long history problem of same pattern of idiotic reverts...

    User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page: David Gordon (choreographer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "Yes, in AMERICAN ENGLISH. Please see any AMERICAN ENGLISH dictionary, or Google "improvize", where it will reject the word in favor of "improvise". It is NOT one of the many words which differ from "s" to "z" between British English and American English. I have in my hand the Oxford American Dictionary, which lists "improvise" and not "improvize". The same for the Doubleday Dict. Or look at this from Grammarist [17]"
    2. 00:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life and career */ "Improvise" is spelled with an "s" in American English. Please consult a dictionary:"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) to 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
      1. 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1151255634 by Beyond My Ken (talk): Restore specific information which was replaced by generalized information"
      2. 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) to 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
      1. 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore refs - so reason giben for deletion"
      2. 21:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore specific places"
      3. 21:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore marriage dates"
      4. 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1134254814 by Beyond My Ken (talk): A high pertage of this edit is detrimental to the article"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ new section"
    2. 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ Please stop you
      own
      "
    3. 00:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ cmt"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* External links modified */ Delete per IABot (RfC)"

    Comments:

    Again, here we go, this guy just don't stop. See block log - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Consecutive edits are considered as a single edit, not multiple ones. FlightTime is editing warring over "improvize" being the proper American spelling. It is not. In all varieties of English, the word is spelled "improvise". See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My reply from their talk: Whatever, it's not the spelling, it's the editwarring across the whole article today, and for years with you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also point out that while I obviously do not have OWNERSHIP of the article, I do have a legitimate stake in its STEWARDSHIP, having written 96.8% of the 67,653 byte article [18], and that FlightTime's edits in attempting to force the incorrect spelling "improvize" into the article, while not vandalism per se, was certainly not improving the article.
      And then there's FlightTime's animosity to me, sparked when he tried to nominate an unnecessary redirect of an image from Commons, and instead nominated the actual image. When I objected, he flipped me off, referring to me as "Einstein", as if it were I who had made the error, not them. [19]. FlightTime clearly has a quick fuse, and it looks as if they hold grudges as well - which is really what this is about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I haven't made myself clear, You have an ownership mentality on all article you watch. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I watch 4,042 articles, so that is an absurd statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article's history, when multiple consecutive edits are counted as one, I had only two reverts before FlightTime began edit-warring to force "improvize" into the article. I now -- admittedly, have four reverts, so I guess I'm due for a sanction. I would argue, though, that FlightTime's ignoring multiple attempts to point them to the correct spelling ([20], [21], edit summary, edit summary) is a mitigating circumstance, and would ask for a mulligan on edit four. I don't expect to get it, but I do FT's think forcing a misspelling into an article, whole ignoring please to simply look it up in a dictionary, is as close to "obvious vandalism" as one can get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block log show s different pattern. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible for the two of you to discuss your differences at Talk:David Gordon (choreographer) and leave the admins alone? Neither of you have a clean track record when it comes to edit warring, and this would be a really stupid argument to lengthen it over. – bradv 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm done. I've taken the article off my watchlist, but the editor has been disruptive for years. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Brad: I'd be more than happy to discuss any lingering problems with FlightTime on the article talk page. In fact, I'll go there now and start a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. While you're at it, start one at Talk:Valda Setterfield too. – bradv 01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. The first is here, and I have notified FlightTime on their talk page [22]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second discussion is Talk:Valda Setterfield#Discussion on my recent edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned – bradv 01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm done. Don't expect me to chime in, I've spent more time than I care to on this user, because after all his blocks, he still doesn't learn. I have in 2019, when was his last block? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FlightTime, will you please explain why you tried so hard to add a spelling error to this article? Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:BATTLEGROUND editing history and just kinda had enough of it. I'm done with this issue and user. Left a poke for the script author on my talk pointing to the issue. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    FlightTime, it is fine to use a script to assist you in correcting spelling errors, but you are fully responsible for the accuracy of your own edits. If you are not reasonably certain that your edit is correct, then please do not make it. Do not blame the script when you make a mistake. And when another editor points out quite clearly that you are wrong, pay attention. Do not let your clearly expressed enmity toward the other editor blind you to the fact that your spelling was wrong. The goal is a better encyclopedia with correct spelling, not conflicts among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Been here almost 15 years, thanks for the Wiki-preaching, I know all this stuff (I didn't blame the script, I just said I used it), but in real life, sometimes shit happens, good Admin response though. Happy editing, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EndlessCoffee54 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: San Jose, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: EndlessCoffee54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. April 11, 16:47 [24] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
    2. April 23, 01:59 [25] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
    3. April 23, 02:03 [26] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
    4. April 23, 02:35 [27] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
    5. April 23, 03:53 [28] Restored "the cultural, economic, and political center of Silicon Valley"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:San_Jose,_California#Overempasis_on_Silicon_Valley.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

    Comments: Back in March 2017, Cristiano Tomás added the text saying San Jose "is the economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley", but this was unsupported by cites. When it was challenged, EndlessCoffee54 added low quality citations in May 2020.[31] Today's fourth revert shown above restores the same disputed text but with new citations. These cites are under challenge on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The original version of this page, before Binksternet began removing the line "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley" last month, had this phrase in there for years, at least since 2017. I have been contributing to this page since 2012? and I still remember a version of it being there then. Binksternet's removal of this phrase was initially reverted by another editor (CristianoTomas, from what I remember) because it was a controversial change that he disagreed with. When this happens, the page typically stays at status quo per
    WP:QUO
    , which is a version of the page that contained "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley." The onus is on the person making the controversial change to head to the talk page. Yes, he has the ability to be bold and make the edit in the first place. But out of good faith, when more than one editor reverts that change repeatedly, as I and others did, Binksternet should have gone to the talk page to suggest his edits and have the conversation we are currently having now there. Not to keep reverting over the period of a month to get his preferred version.
    As a reference point, two or so years ago, I altered the longstanding lede of the San Francisco article from "the" to "a" "cultural, commercial, and financial center of NorCal." I think Binksternet may have been the one who reverted me. Instead of disrespecting his choice, I went to the talk page and built consensus to make that change permanent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#SF_Being_*the*_Political,_Cultural,_and_Economic_Center_of_NorCal). Binksternet did not do the same here, instead choosing to selectively revert the longstanding consensus over the course of a month+, even when repeatedly told in the edit history to come to the talk page. He also pursued no intermediate measures like messaging editors to work out a solution in lieu of going to the talk page, or by placing a citation notice on the article or the reference line so that others could add better sources, like the page has now. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that Binksternet also used incredibly crass language in some of his edits and in his message on my talk page, where he referred to the sources as "shitty." That's unprofessional behavior that shouldn't be aired on Wikipedia and doesn't contribute to any meaningful conversation, but instead serves to bully other editors into submission. He's also insinuated on the San Jose talk page that a book on Latino history in the US couldn't possibly have value as a source on Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of Latinos work. I found this comment deeply insulting and to be frank, slightly racist in its tone. This is the kind of behavior that tracks with repeated reverts instead of coming to the talk page to discuss something in good faith after several long-time editors had disagreed with the changes. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this acknowledges your explicit violation of 3RR. Regarding who was supposed to go to the talk page,
    WP:ONUS could not be more clear about it: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You were seeking to include disputed content, so you should have started a talk page discussion about it. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You also violated 3RR, in spirit, if not explicitly by the letter of the policy. You've reverted the page to your preferred form 7-8 different times over the last month, when asked to come to the talk page to discuss. Your material was in dispute first. It was your onus to begin the talk page discussion. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of comments from an uninvolved editor:
    I've just had a look at this, and it appears that the exact content that is being removed here, had previously been in the article for a long time, since at least January 2021. So if anything, the removal of it is the bold edit here.
    However, as of now, multiple other editors have objected to EndlessCoffee54's restoration of that content, and not just Binksternet. Namely, Drmies (diff), and Amakuru (diff). Looking at the talk page, it doesn't look to me like the dispute is fully over yet, but this is where things are at right now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you or someone you know be open to moderating a streamlined discussion on this so we can reach a compromise? I think what is in controversy is the "Silicon Valley" designation. I do think that some phrase about San Jose being the center of the Valley is necessary. Perhaps "Santa Clara Valley," or "South Bay" instead, since San Jose is the political seat of government and main component of its MSA. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The user complains at length above about the reporter, but none of those matter when he had so clearly violated 3RR within the space of an hour and a half as the reported diffs demonstrate. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FlameCelestial reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Central Mountain Range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FlameCelestial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151371678
    2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151331802
    3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151185385
    4.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1150650673
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    Warning: Three-revert rule on Central Mountain Range." Warning issued by LVTW2

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments: Repetitive vandalism and unconstructive edits conducted by one specific user (

    NPOV policy and the existing consensus. LVTW2 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
    3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1151444533"