Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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.


Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:A145GI15I95 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Feminist views on transgender topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892613552 by Mooeena (talk) Reliably sourced, relevant. Scrubbing not discussed."
  2. 04:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892528583 by Mooeena (talk) It's not been discussed. You're now violating BRD."
  3. 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892526873 by Mooeena (talk) Removal of this much reliably sourced, relevant content warrants its own discussion."
  4. 19:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC) "Re-add "gender critical" w/ cites. Re-order "terf" section around themes. Remove dupe cites."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 05:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "/* NPOV terminology */"
Comments:

User has been re-adding content against overwhelming consensus of other users in the discussion. Topic may also relate to discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Mooeena💌✒️ 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena has hounded me on Wikipedia since we met,[1] continually removing content that I add, while ignoring similar content from other editors.[2] In this case, the diff she links above ("NPOV terminology") was in response to a different editor's repeated and possibly cavalier use of a different term on the talk page (this is difficult to see, because yet another editor forked the conversation). Mooeena is ignoring BRD: She boldly removed reliably sourced and relevant content, I reverted it, and I suggested she open a new discussion. She instead re-removed it a second time last night and a third time this morning. I've now extended the courtesy of opening a new discussion for her regarding this scrubbing."gender_critical"_in_article I'd like to ask that she stop taking such personal interest in me, and she instead re-focus her efforts on building better content for Wikipedia. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment I would support a boomerang on Mooeena: she has to all appearances been hounding A145GI15I95 since their conflict over Detransition. Take a look at their editing overlap: [3] This no-edit-summary removal of A145GI15I95's sourced, uncontroversial content on Cultural impact of Star Wars strikes me as particularly inappropriate. gnu57 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What are my options, please, to respond productively to this situation? I've invested many hours in attempting to reason with Mooeena here on Wikipedia, in edit logs and on talk pages. I've waited many weeks in the hopes that her opinion of me would temper. I've changed my username and locked my social media accounts due to her repeated remarks of my actual or perceived activity outside Wikipedia. What action can I request to resolve this unpleasant situation? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You can start by making an attempt at Mediation, or failing that, look at other Dispute resolution options. El_C 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this, I think Mooeena is a good editor and so is A145GI15I95. They need to get over their issues.★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. In order to violate 3RR, one needs to make four reverts in the course of 24 hours, which is not the case here. Nevertheless, there is edit warring here, so I've protected the page for one week. Please take the content discussion to the article talk page. As to claims of hounding, there is not enough dated diff evidence presented here for me to evaluate, but at any rate, it may go beyond the scope of this particular report. El_C 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've began concluded the process of redacting A145GI15I95 prior name out of past revisions, so hopefully, at least that would be out of the equation. El_C 22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to Feminist views on transgender topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

In addition to this noticeboard a thread is open at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics.

In addition a prior closely related archived discussion at ANI was 3 weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Transgender-related POV. -- (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That ANI has already been linked in my first statement above,[4] why add it again here (immediately above) and here[5] (on another thread)? It's challenging and time-consuming to keep up with and respond clearly to all of your contributions that now focus more on my person than on our content. I've gotten the impression that you've begun to hound me too (seemingly refusing anything that appears to come from me,[6] seemingly turning any thread I join off-topic and into trials against my presence,[7] and repeatedly linking diffs of my supposed wrongdoing[8]). Please don't hound me, or at least have the courtesy to open a single case against me in a single, appropriate place. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page
Stagecoach Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Angryskies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892568212 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Rv. no reason to remove factual information"
  2. 11:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892551423 by Charlesdrakew (talk) This is no rule. No consensus has ever been reached"
  3. 13:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892338248 by Charlesdrakew (talk) RV. please cite Wikipedia rule."
  4. 13 April
  5. 12 April
  6. 12 April
  7. 11 April
  8. 10 April
  9. 10 April
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [9]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

A pattern of edit warring while just avoiding 3 reverts in 24 hours on various articles while making no effort to justify their changes at talk. Again at Virgin Rail Group 3 reverts of two other editors in 3 days to push their version without discussion. At Arriva UK Bus the same pattern of reverting another editors who points out that we do not use UK in addition to the country of the UK. Charles (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg 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. Although frankly I'm tempted to block the pair of you for such a lame edit war. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have warned Angryskies to stop following you around and reverting you, otherwise he can expect a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article had UK at the end for over 2 years. Until this edit
  1. 24 March 2019‎ .

I simply changed it back. Then Charles has been reverting back to this edit and also removed additional edits that I made to the article and has been inconsistent with the reason for reverting:

  1. UK is not needed or wanted per consensus.Not an improvement. - pointed out there is no consensus
  2. See Wikiproject UKGeography - no rule on Wikiproject UKGeography

This user has now been following my edits reverting them, including removal of factual information such the article on Virgin Rail Group where Charles has removed the operating subsidiary and replaced it with former subsidiaries, but using the reason of UK not needed per general consensus . [10]

If you look at my previous history of edits, creation of articles and reporting of vandals, I have only made edits which are factual. If I am being warned, then Charles should also be warned too.

I look forward to your reply. Angryskies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My reply is simply, edit warring is edit warring, regardless of content (with very limited exceptions such as reverting blatant vandalism, which this isn't). "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring!" is no defence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NoCoRadioAdvocate reported by User:MB (Result: 24 hours one week)[edit]

Page
KBPI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
NoCoRadioAdvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892790360 by Mrschimpf (talk) You need to stop. Your contributions are disruptive to the page."
  2. 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892790228 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on KBPI. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

At least 3 reverts under username, likely more as IP, despite warnings on user's talk page. MB 22:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Been trying to cleanup this page to meet our standards for radio articles per WP:WPRS (including adding callsign meaning and cleaning up the format section which included a 'these bands don't belong on this station' scold that shouldn't be there), along with removing a non-notable heavy schedule section; there are several other things, including a mention of a station personality's murder, that I would love to expand on, but I haven't been able to get to that. The editor above has not taken any of my advice at all to heart, including bouncing to another IP to restore their article version (and a suspicion from me they were using a community college IP to start the issue yesterday before account creation). They also continue on insisting that K300CP, a Denver translator of the main station, should have its own article, despite all of its information about its five year history (mainly involving re-tunes to various Denver area AM and HD Radio subchannel stations) fitting comfortably in the KBPI article. I have also told them several times that if a station doesn't broadcast HD Radio, we simply don't mention it, but they insist on adding a line which comes off as annoyed that they do not do so. Finally, they added an inappropriately licensed version of the station logo to Commons; a properly-licensed local version I uploaded was removed. Nate (chatter) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 23:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Has now hopped to 69.11.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to wind past 3RR. Nate (chatter) 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Block evasion. Article and redirect semiprotected for six months. El_C 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Partycity reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Greendale High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Partycity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892739926 by John from Idegon (talk)"
  2. 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Greendale High School. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Three different editors have reverted this poorly sourced content. Reported user keeps re-adding. It goes on back well into last month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Left the user a note about starting to use the article talk page and ceasing from edit warring. El_C 03:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:47.72.113.98 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Roguelike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.72.113.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17] article talk and [18] IP talk page.

Comments:
IP keeps trying to add in the fact that the term "roguelike" has been "co-opted" (previously trying to include "misused" by modern games). Without going into the long history of the genre, there are a small minority of game players that do not like the fact that games that are so far removed from the likes of Rouge, Angband, or Nethack get called "roguelike". But, there are no sources that we can use to show this resentment. I have asked the IP to include sources, but they instead point to the wikitext, so effectively arguing original research. As well as the fact that the term was "co-opted" is a very fringe view. Keeping the contentious POV in without sources is a problem. Masem (t) 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 16:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bjcjj61 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page
Richard III of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bjcjj61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "King Richard III was Roman Catholic"
  2. 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
  3. 16:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content, Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."
  4. 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "welcome etc"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

No acceptance or seeming understanding of the issues. Repeating the mantra does not instil any faith that they will stop inserting the trivia (and breaking the page formatting as they do it). ——SerialNumber54129 19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Earliest edit is not a revert but the original edit. El_C 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:46.208.152.88 reported by User:Ad Orientem (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Caning of Charles Sumner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
46.208.152.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947734 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
  2. 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947289 by Ad Orientem (talk) you really think that readers around the world know the abbreviations of US political parties and of US states? They do not. If you think the parties and states are important, write them properly"
  3. 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947076 by Ad Orientem (talk) it is US-specific jargon, not comprehensible to the majority of English speakers"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Caning of Charles Sumner. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • none by the user filing the report, despite their three reverts: [19][20][21]
Comments:
  • Disruptive editing and edit warring. IP was urged to take the discussion to the talk page repeatedly and reminded of WP:BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Nobody's broken the 3RR. No attempt has been made by the user to explain why they think MOS:FIRSTOCC does not apply, nor to justify using US-specific jargon. This is not an encyclopaedia for Americans. The user did not attempt to use the talk page before filing this report. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Also requesting that reviewing admin restore the article to last stable version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope that the reviewing admin does not need MOS:FIRSTOCC pointing out to them, and does not follow your request to make the article pointlessly obscure and US-specific. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. 3RR was not violated, but I cautioned the user about edit warring. Discussion seem to be happening on the talk page, so hopefully, consensus can be arrived at there and that will be the end of that edit war. Sorry, in this case, as reviewing admin I don't feel comfortable to get involved with this on the mainspace. El_C 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And why did you not warn User:Ad Orientem? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Because I did not perceive him of being at risk of breaching 3RR. El_C 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You did not notice their three reverts in eight minutes, then? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You need to drop it. Obviously, they were not going to violate 3RR having filed this report. El_C 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And yet obviously they were edit warring, and they appealed for someone else to revert a fourth time on their behalf. If you had warned them not to edit war, perhaps they would be less likely to do it in future. Instead, you've endorsed their conduct. Note that they have not said a single thing on the article's talk page. This suggests that the article content was not in fact of any great interest to them. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I already know them to be familar with WP:EW. Warnings are not badges of dishonour, if it's symmetry you're after. An absence of a warning is hardly an endorsement of anyone's conduct. And they have not been around to say anything, anywhere. It's only been a day. El_C 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If they are familiar with it, then why did they revert three times in eight minutes? They were obviously around to say things when they were edit warring and filing reports, but they preferred to revert without discussing. But despite the edit warring policy, and the text that appears when you file a report -- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -- you've bent over backwards to excuse their poor conduct. I will not be at all surprised if I see similar conduct from the user in the future. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, why did you revert at all? Not to mention three times. You seem to be aware of policy, so what is your excuse? El_C 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Your refusal to answer the question I asked you is noted. Why didn't I follow "an optional method of reaching consensus"? Because it's optional. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So is warning (or suggestion, if you will). El_C 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as yet another incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated courtesy @Ad Orientem and El C:. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that is a long list. I confess to not being familiar enough with the LTA to comment further. El_C 10:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Stormbird reported by User:Harmanprtjhj (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. first edit 09:51, 31 March 2019‎
  2. first revert 15:05, 1 April 2019‎
  3. second revert 18:51, 1 April 2019‎
  4. third revert 17:14, 3 April 2019‎
  5. fourth revert 06:23, 17 April 2019‎
  6. fifth revert 19:05, 17 April 2019‎


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23][24]

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

Comments:

Edit warring with passion to enforce his blatant POV edits (rejected on talk page) and edit warring against 3 different editors. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation This appears to be a content dispute being discussed on the article Talk page with sporadic reverts by editors on the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonybins reported by User:Zorro naranjo (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

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

  1. Notyfy on users TP

Also, Tonybins created and wrote on my users page (not TP), so obviously, he badly imagines the mechanism of Wikipedia, including understanding of reliable sources. He wants to add to the article a list of legislative proposals of Olexiy Poroshenko. I've never seen such a thing in another articles. In addition, he is trying to remove Poroshenko’s quotation about deputies ’income from the "Earnings" section, and replace it with a completely extraneous quotation that's not related to the topic of the section.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

  1. Version before edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29] - He even recovers an obvious mistake in the title of the source.
  5. [30]

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

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

Comments:


User:Zorro naranjo deletes information from authoritative sources. This is deliberate vandalism. Most likely associated with the election campaign in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talkcontribs) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zorro naranjo I ask you not to delete the information, especially before the presidential elections in Ukraine. The laws of Olexiy Poroshenko are interesting for Wikipedia users, as they relate to the budget of Ukraine, the military, the reform of the customs service and the like. Wikipedia users should know what laws are initiated by the son of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talkcontribs) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Max England reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jayda Fransen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Max England (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Opinion is not fact. Corrected the radical left bias in this article."
  2. 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Radical Marxist pushing their ideology & ignoring fact when it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Wikipedia has long since been a reliable source of information since it was taken over by SJW's."
  3. 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 11:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Political bias / incorrect labelling / not objective."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jayda Fransen. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Political POV pushing; the edit-summaries explain better than I can. But basically, removing well-sourced material per their WP:POV. ——SerialNumber54129 16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Earl CG reported by User:Max England (Result: Boomerang)[edit]

Page: Jayda Fransen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked as said above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:King Crimson the Third (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Film Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893066021 by Spshu (talk"
  2. 19:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893065941 by Spshu (talk)"
  3. 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893055911 by Spshu (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

  • The dispute may have been going since mid-March. If you check the edit history, you will probably see more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    EdJohnston, Per your message, I've had a look and there's been a dispute for over a year with Spshu posting on the talk page a while back. The article has been fully protected on multiple occasions since that post. Please also see User Talk:Spshu for discussion regarding how to handle disputes very recently including advising not continuing revrting without getting another editor's opinion, going to a talk page or contacting an admin noticeboard RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof reported by User:Mnpie1789 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
  4. [34]

Previous version reverted to: [35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:BarrelProof has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:BarrelProof has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:BarrelProof seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:BarrelProof on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • My comments on this issue are set out in the thread below. I endorse the comments made by BarrelProof. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Stale. El_C 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle reported by User:Mnpie1789 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]
  4. [39]

Previous version reverted to: [40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:Ghmyrtle has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:Ghmyrtle has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:Ghmyrtle seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Further, there is some indication that the user is sock-puppeting, using different IPs to make it seem his views represent a consensus on the subject when they flatly do not. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:Ghmyrtle on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Please also see the above section of this page that reports a similar complaint against me by the same user. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As other discussions make clear, Mnpie1789 is on a longstanding campaign to present the article subject, a convicted murderer, in the most favourable possible light, contrary to the balance of reliable sources, and contrary to the views of all other editors of the article. I have no "malicious agenda" or "prejudicially biased point of view" regarding the subject; I resent being called "trollish"; I do not consider that any of my edits are "in violation of WP policies and guidelines"; and any investigation will show that allegations of "sock-puppeting" are false. Can I suggest that a reading of WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate, and a longer block of Mnpie should be considered? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Stale, again. Mnpie1789, as seemingly a single-purpose account you are walking a fine line here — you should be aware of that by now

User:Neill Patterson reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: one week)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]

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

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

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 22:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:GoLatvia (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2019 Israeli legislative election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:51, 17 April 2019
  2. 15:33, 18 April 2019
  3. 15:40, 18 April 2019
  4. 21:49, 18 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The attempt to resolve the dispute was on my user talk page

Comments:
We had a discussion on my talk page, which user:Number 57 basically made the arguments that the description that I proposed adding is "not necessary" because it does not exist on other articles about Israeli elections. In spite of the warning, user performed another revert. GoLatvia (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, as is clear from the dates/times on the above diffs, I haven't broken 3RR. Secondly, as can be seen in the edit summaries of the last three diffs and my comment on their userpage, I have repeatedly requested that GoLatvia respects WP:BRD and stop adding this text to the results table (which they've done six times now, five of which have been reverting it back in: [47][48][49][50][51][52]) until they gain consensus for the change. Number 57 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I am this close to blocking both of you for how lame this edit war is. Seriously, you know better. 3RR was not technically breached, but it's close. Anyway, you've both been productive editors with respect to this article — find a way to get along again. I am not going to protect this article, but I expect you both to work toward finding consensus on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:K27soccer (Result: )[edit]

Page: Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluevale Collegiate Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
Reporter appears to be adding fake information to the article: [58], [59], [60], etc. Should be a swift boomerang. SWL36 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Semi protection is also warranted as there are IP and other new editors involved also. This would best be characterized as a three day vandalism spree. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
User attempted to add a student president to the school infobox 4 times in less than 24 hours. I undid one of those edits and warned them for 3RR and vandalism. User responded by opening this report and making the claim again [61], this time with different students listed, apparently confirming that the first 4 attempts were indeed bogus. I've reported them to AIV. Meters (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)