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 AcidRock67 (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 15 May 2016 (→User:AcidRock67 reported by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Sureshpandey reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Ila Pant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sureshpandey (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: [7]

    Comments:
    The user User:Sureshpandey is violating and does not understand Wikipedia:Ownership of content, he has claimed previosly that he works in Pant family office so there is clearly WP:CONFLICT. User:Sureshpandey is posting entirely original research and images in Ila Pant and other pant family articles K. C. Pant and Govind Ballabh Pant while working in their office. I have tried to explain him the wikipedia policies in GB Pant talk page here --> [[8]] .. but he won't listen and currently doing edit warring and POV pushing on Ila Pant article. Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    @utcursch, yes sir, thanks.. but I Am sure that @ User:Sureshpandey will now push his version by ip edits now.. and i dunno what to do then :-( .. I Am discussing these issues with him for over 1-2 months now but he obviously ignores the talk pages advises of all Pant family articles --> Govind Ballabh Pant, K. C. Pant and Ila Pant and his ip edits recklessly revert to sureshpandey versions.... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll keep a watch on the pages. You can request page protection at WP:RfPP, and report the IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. utcursch | talk 13:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CFCF reported by User:Ratel (Result: declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    There is quite a lively discussion going on, which I started on the talk page. I believe we must solve the issue whether it is neutral, due, and policy-abiding to include primary sourced for controversial statements. There have also risen concerns about misrepresenting sources [16] Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So, no real excuse for edit warring then? Ratel (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    there should always be [17]WP:CONSENSUS , CFCF was editing in the best interest of the article (I would have done the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'd break the rules too, huh? Figures. Ratel (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts[18] he did not have more than 3!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're leaving off a sentence, " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --Lo te xendo (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have provided a long list of his edits that revert other editors actions in whole or in part. If you look at the page history it's a lot more than 4! Ratel (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Chile at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) to 04:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 04:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Lightweight double sculls doesn't have a quarterfinal phase."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Chile 2016 Olympics */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user has been warned multiple times abut going against MOS (ie separating the men and women athletes, when they should be on one table) here and here

    I am sick of this user behaving like he owns all of these pages and the editing must be done according to his standards. CAN ACTION PLEASE BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT AGAINST ME? I'M NOT ABUSING MY EDITS OKAY! WHY DO YOU KEEP ACCUSING ME ON EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M EDITING? CAN YOU PLEASE STOP ACCUSING ME ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE PAGES? IT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED BULLYING AND ASSUMPTION AGAINST GOOD FAITH. I'M CORRECTING AND MADE SOME OF THE CHANGES, and then suddenly, YOU KEPT ON REVERTING WITHOUT CAREFULLY LOOKING AT OTHER UPDATES. Lightweight double sculls doesn't indeed have a QUARTERFINAL PHASE for both men and women, only single sculls do. But looking at the men's lightweight double sculls that you reverted, it contains a quarterfinal phase, while the women doesn't. WHAT SEEMS TO BE YOUR PROBLEM? Stop telling me that it's against MOS (blah blah) as your main reason. It's irritating and stressful to hear that. I don't even understand why do you have to file a complaint against me on edit warring. This is for the nth time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG. Stop squabbling the pair of you. And frankly in this case it doesn't look like a 3RR violation anyway given that the edits are correcting an error - Basement12 (T.C) 07:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Basement12. I'm already fed up of his accusations against me contributing to the WikiProject Olympics. Looks like he might want to remove me from the user list of the project. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The more I look at this I see WP:BOOMERANG issues here. Both editors should discuss. Qed237 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Basement12, another issue on me about my edit for Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics. He thinks that I don't speak English and have ownership issues. Also, he will keep on giving me the same reason about this. It makes me irritating and stressful. I don't even know how many NOC pages did he target on his watch list. First, he started the edit war with me on Canada, San Marino, Chile, and now Spain. I have too many concerns already about the styling. And the width of tables for events. They're even longer than the name of athletes and the results which will be posted during the Games. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a closer look at these two editors? The war between them continues on multiple articles for example Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics recently. Qed237 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, across most of the articles, Qed237. I just don't even understand why Sportsfan 1234 continues to come out very aggressively in a "I am always right" way to my edits without resolving the issues and simply respect other people's matters on our discussion. Truthfully, I am tired of edit warring and it enrages me a lot because of too many disagreements.
    Add one more thing. Shooting at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. I just don't understand why Canada appears on the row Athletes qualifying in other events, and not other NOCs, which sounded unfair though. Of course, we will include most of the shooters in that row, but I just simply hide them until all 390 athletes have already been named, and then unhide them for sure (isn't Sportsfan 1234 patient with these details; time is of essence). Here's the priority level. It starts with qualifying period and selection of athletes, and then Tripartite Commission names the shooters, before ISSF distributes unused places to shooters from unqualified nations. Once the list has completed, we can add the rest of the selected shooters in the row Athletes qualifying in other events. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This applies to BOTH editors. Both editors are edit warring over several articles, and even though they are communicating at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics it does not mean that they can revert eachother until consensus has been found. If you look at article history at Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics you see the "+174" and "-174" since 10 May and that they edited this 9 times each (diffs from one of the editors on that article include [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). Also both editors have been warned here and here for edit warring and has removed other warnings at their talkpages. Time for action. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Valery Surkoff reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Dmitry Polyakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Valery Surkoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    A new SPA user instantly reverts cleanup tags placed onto the article and does not respond to warnings in their talk page, simply reverting them.

    Diffs of the user's removal of the cleanup tag:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]

    And the user continues reverting other tags. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administrators!

    Let me briefly to comment. User User: Staszek Lem irreconcilable edit the article and not explained which rules I violated. I have read the rules and found none the rules I violated, at the same time the user Statzek Lem is refused from a public discussion. His argument was - Russian people spread Pirate Video. I think it's just inadmissible arguments. Now there are complaints to administrators - it looks like a war against the person. I ask you to sort things out objectively in this issue. I create this article with only good intentions about Dmitry Polyakov - he realy worthy and renowned young musician. I added enough information and will add more - give me the time. Eventually I received unjustified criticism and irreconcilable edit and even delete the page. I think this behavior is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia. valery surkoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Valery Surkoff reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Dmitry Polyakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Valery Surkoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "The rules do not prohibit links"
    2. 19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "The rules do not prohibit references in sections"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC) to 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 18:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "These claims are unfounded and belong to the user's(Staszek Lem) personal interests."
      2. 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "It has no relation to reality. This is a personal opinion of the user."
    4. 18:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719772543 by Staszek Lem (talk)"
    5. 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719772543 by Staszek Lem (talk)"
    6. 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719639946 by Staszek Lem (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Help me! */ edit conflict in closing helpme, plus minor formatting in order to make it slightly more readable"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* List of youtube videos of the conductor */ reply"
    2. 21:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/*Removal of PROD tag: */ reply"
    Comments:

    Whether or not this user actually has a COI, they do not seem keen on coming to any form of consensus. Every change, even those backed by policy, are being reverted. Staszek Lem has left them multiple notes regarding talk page usage and removal of tags, and despite a 3RR notice by Liz they are keeping right at it. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note As the user was not notified of Staszek Lem's nomination at 3RR, I did not realize it had already been filed. Feel free to close whichever one is more appropriate.
    • Comment Both Valery Surkoff and Staszek Lem are guilty of edit warring on this article. I posted edit warring notices on each of their talk pages (Staszek Lem removed the one on his talk page). They have both continued to edit the article although the reverts have stopped. There is the beginning of a discussion on the article talk page. I think they both need to step away from this article for a while. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bull. I placed cleanup tags, this page owner promptly removed the without responding to talk page. I have already stepped away from this article after posting notices on a couple of admin boards. I perfectly realize that it impossible to fight a bully one-on-one in wikipedia. Initially I was reinserting tags, because I thought a newbie will come to their senses and respond to notices it talk pages. And there is no "discussion" in article talk page about this particular issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administrators!

    Let me briefly to comment. User User: Staszek Lem irreconcilable edit the article and not explained which rules I violated. I have read the rules and found none the rules I violated, at the same time the user Statzek Lem is refused from a public discussion. His argument was - Russian people spread Pirate Video. I think it's just inadmissible arguments. Now there are complaints to administrators - it looks like a war against the person. I ask you to sort things out objectively in this issue. I create this article with only good intentions about Dmitry Polyakov - he realy worthy and renowned young musician. I added enough information and will add more - give me the time. Eventually I received unjustified criticism and irreconcilable edit and even delete the page. I think this behavior is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia. Do not take away my right to edit this article. Because no one will defend this article and the right to be this musician in Wikipedia. You just kill the article - it will just be vandalism. valery surkoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You will be gladly given an opportunity to edit the article once you start paying attention what people are actually advising you. You are ignoring all advises starting from the very first one given in the very fist post on your talk page: how to correctly sign your posts. The sooner you stop attacking other editors and start asking questions the sooner you will write an article about "really worthy and renowned young musician". And yes, Russian people do spread pirate video on youtube, and you have to provide some minimal evidence that you are not one of them. I did find it myself, by the way, i.e., we are not your enemies here. And I wrote about this in the talk page and got no 'thank you'. I am sorry that Putin's Russia is full of anti-American paranoia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.251.87.63 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Over the Hedge (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.251.87.63 (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 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Possible sequel */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      3. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 01:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. 01:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
      3. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
      4. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
      5. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    these support about the Garry Shandling death from the flash back in 2006 became a actor voice with Verne the turtle with adding from the unsourced. Oripaypaykim (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ip address involved in edit warring (Result: Semiprotections)

    This ip address is reverting all the pages again and again. He seems to be a sockpuppet of account Fareed30 (talk · contribs) as he also use to keep on reverting again and again. He has been editing pages like Anil Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Saif Ali Khan and many more. Issue is that he keeps on ignoring the comments which are left in the edit section. Can you please have look into this matter. Thankyou

    Links to his edits are [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] etcSaladin1987 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Several articles semiprotected. Of the three IPs you listed, the last is from a different continent and seems unrelated. A connection to User:Fareed30 remains to be shown, but this IP editor from Saudi Arabia does seem to assert Pashtun connections for lots of people. No rangeblock seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:5.43.200.7 reported by User:Random86 (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Moonlight Drawn by Clouds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    5.43.200.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
    2. 03:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */Just keep it..it won't kill you I swear"
    3. 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */I have to do this at least as a fan of both of the main cast 😠"
    4. 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */Why is it annoying you?
    5. 04:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */However you will loose nothing if we didn't delete it...
    6. 13:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */We must keep it...for me when I see a drama that is far and i see the page of this drama is already done I want to watch cuz people look that they already excited about this drama...I'm a big big fan of the main cast ❤
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Moonlight Drawn by Clouds. (TW)"
    2. 03:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "please stop"
    3. 09:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User:AkoAyMayLobo. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 03:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings table */ new section"
    Comments:

    There has been a slow motion edit war over the inclusion of an empty ratings table for a TV series that doesn't start until August. This IP has also also vandalized another user's page: [35]. Random86 (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks on my user page AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boaxy reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: 31h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]
    5. [41]
    6. several more...
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [42]
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    [43]
    Comments:

    Editor persistently adds several genres to the band's infobox that are sourced from online blog posts and other self-published sources. Totally disregards any attempts by me to explain how and why they don't belong on Wikipedia.Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • We discussed on the article's talk page, that the sources do pertain to the subject of the article. It's just a debate as to whether or not they are suitable for wikipedia. I have heard from many that music editorials and databases like allmusic are suitable sources. Then it turns out that wasn't the issue in the first place. It seems the issue is that the above user who made this notice on me, seems to think the genres are dismissive, when I obviously sourced every single one that is mentioned. So yes I did revert the article to my changes, because I'm not here to please him. Boaxy (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another revert.
    Your genres were dismissed because they don't even appear in most of the sources you gave, and even for the ones that do, are still self-published. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. The only exception was an AllMusic review that states "Pizzicato Five once again transformed, this time into a sleek house music machine" for a single album.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boaxy's continued tendentious behavior and refusal to cease this kind of misconduct may be grounds for a topic ban and/or an extended block if this conduct is not refrained from immediately. A Topic Ban post has been added to the primary noticeboard here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Would_a_Topic_Ban_be_necessary? --Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Chris[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — longer term; already has had to be topic banned on something else and blocked in violation of it, too, so this user should know better than to repeatedly revert. --slakr\ talk / 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He still doesn't get it

    After finding out that he was blocked, Boaxy immediately resorts to personal attacking myself while he is off Wikipedia (specifically, on Reddit); crying homophobia, bullying, etc. when this has nothing to do with all that. He should know why his conduct is unacceptable.

    Here's the post he made (though I apologize if it gets deleted because I reported it): https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/4jabgu/f_wikipedia_for_real/ --Loyalmoonie (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Chris[reply]

    For the personal attack made in Boaxy's unblock request, I have increased the block to 1 week, and would consider a lengthy escalation should such attacks continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factor-h reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)

    Page: Jupiter Ace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Factor-h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. [44]
    2. [45]
    3. [46]
    4. [47] (deleted again, even after discussion was requested)

    Newish user using 4RR to strong-arm a deletion.

    The content is unquestioned, but is being repeatedly blanked as "Appendix information (not spec) removed from specs." and "an environmental characteristic". I don't know what either of these mean, the editor's English language skills (they're Portugese?) make it difficult to communicate with them.

    The point to this content is that these early home computers didn't use the same character sets, they rolled their own - only a small part was ASCII. For the Ace, a notable choice was made to follow the ZX Spectrum's lead. This is worth recording.

    Some discussion was requested at Talk:Jupiter_Ace#Deletion_of_character_set_description and Talk:Jupiter_Ace#Overflowing_with_undue_mentions, but they just went and deleted it again anyway.

    Their other edits (across very few articles) seem to be equally contentious with other editors. See Talk:ZX81 & Talk:Tape drive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GreenChairBMX reported by User:Quorum816 (Result: both editors warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]


    Diff of warning: [52]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

    Comments: Editor is continually reverting edits without any reasoning supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Initial edits made by the user in March were deleted for copyright infringement by an admin. Editor then paraphrased and re-added them, some under the guise of correcting the page but the majority is poorly structured, repetitive, and in some cases promotional and not newsworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). There are unnecessary sub headers giving undue weight to single lines of content that are not notable, or just speculation in some cases, and there are large sections for topics only covered by a single source (WP:UNDUE). There are also errors in the reference section. Editor claims to be working with an admin on the content, though no evidence exists to suggest that. Edits are continuously reverted with no grounds for doing so and with no effort to actually improve the page.

    Quorum816 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true and misleading. I attempted to work with Quorum several times but he refused to even listen to any of my arguments and took ownership of the page. He is guilty of edit warring as well. GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Quorum816 reported by User:GreenChairBMX (Result: warned both)

    Page: Tom Steyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Quorum816 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [54]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]
    4. [58]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60], [61], [62], [63]

    Comments: I am also reporting the user who reported me. It is unfair that he has accused me of such without examining his own behavior. I offered several compromises to this user and attempted to work with them. Their claims that some of the content is undue and not news firstly, is not accurate, and secondly, does not justify their massive overhaul of the page. It is reliably source and relevant. Even still, what is more concerning is that I offered several times to compromise on the content to no avail. I was, and am still, willing to trim down parts of the page if this user gives up their battleground mentality to wipe all of the content. Their edits are not improvements to the page and I have offered them an olive branch that was rejected. I hope that reviewing administrators do not unjustly single me out when I had hoped this could be resolved with more civility. GreenChairBMX (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    User:110.54.100.63 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: protected)

    Page: Rising Sun Flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 110.54.100.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:58, 12 May 2016 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
    2. 14:07, 12 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
    3. 22:08, 12 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
    4. 04:13, 13 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:28, 12 May 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,796 bytes) (+1,786)‎ . . (→‎May 2016: 3RR warning)

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

    Comments:

    I requested page protection yesterday, however no action yet.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.187.251.61 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

    Page
    List of Señora Acero cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    76.187.251.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I already moved Agnesi, Duval, and Dominguez to main cast, Wohlmuth to recurring according to Telmundo. Added new cast members in new section for now"
    2. 05:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I already moved Agnesi, Duval, and Dominguez to main cast, Wohlmuth to recurring according to Telmundo. Added new cast members in new section for now"
    3. 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I am going by what Telemundo said and I would keep this version for now since they pretty much confirmed everything. When show starts you can re-arrange based upon title sequence"
    4. 03:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "Telmundo officially confirmed statuses, new cast members for season 3 including Miranda replacing Soto and Goyri as new antagonist."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user remains in that all issues should be resolved through wars editions, previously've left him messages on his talk page, which has completely ignored. The day arrives today making major changes in an article claiming that according to the information was confirmed by Telemundo, which is totally false, because not yet confirmed the opening theme of the series. And organizes the cast according as he says, ignored what clearly says stylebook and instructions. I have said this several times, but do not want to understand. Philip J Fry Talk 05:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing conspiracy (probably): User:Staszek Lem and User:Primefac (Result: Declined)

    Dear Admins!

    I want to get your opinion on the following question: Two users (User:Staszek Lem and User:Primefac) actively edit pages Dmitry Polyakov. I had to cancel editing them because they were unfounded (it's my opinion), after 4 times I was blocked. After that, I saw a message in a conversation, look here [[65]] this indicating their conspiracy. What do you think about it? I want to know your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC) --Valery Surkoff (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S., incidentally, it's not correct that you were blocked after reverting 4 times. You were blocked after reverting 7 times. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Dirroli reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: protected)

    Page: Landry's, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dirroli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Original version, before discussion

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [66]
    2. [67]
    3. [68]
    4. [69]
    5. [70]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. Mine
    2. Toohool

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    Dirroli has been edit warring over the proper use of primary sources an the article Landry's, Inc.. Per WP:BRD, toohool (talk · contribs) reverted Dirroli's changes and began a discussion on the talk page. However, Dirroli undid the reversion and only replied with a series of less than appropriate comments and insults. Each time that the disputed citations were restored, Dirroli deleted them. Attempts to reach out to him on his talk page were greeted with a page blanking and snide comments or counter claims that the other editors were the ones doing the warring in the edit histories.

    This is not Dirroli's first time edit warring as he has been previously blocked for such actions on other pages. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And he just did it again... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the page protection, but could you please look into the editor. He has been ramping up the rhetoric against other editors in a manner that is inappropriate with edit summaries that are not very civil or assuming good faith. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ракал (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Breaking 1RR:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

    Comments:
    It should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block two weeks ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring... In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia... SvEcHpInXID (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ракал must be not just blocked but also need ban him of edit all articles about Syrian Civil War.SvEcHpInXID (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StealthForce reported by 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (Result: )

    Page: Hall of Game Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: StealthForce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    StealthForce deleted the 'Awards disestablished in 2014' category from this article again; this is the same user that has been involved in constant edit wars over this article in the past (which you can see in the Hall of Game Awards article history log). I also feel he should be banned because of this matter. Can you please reinstate that particular category for the aforementioned article, as well? Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unable to link to the history log showing all the extensive disruptive edits StealthForce has made (he has made a lot of edits), but you view it in the article's history second, as I mentioned. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AcidRock67 reported by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator (Result: )

    Page: Timothy Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AcidRock67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [73]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]
    4. [77]
    5. [78]
    6. [79]
    7. [80]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    Comments:This user edit warred extensively at Timothy Leary as an IP, 76.188.160.128. The article was semi-protected to stop him doing this, but the user started an account, is now able to by-pass semi-protection, and has continued the same behavior. Above, I have included edits that the user made both as an IP and edits he made with his new account. Note that the user has reverted multiple other users (myself, Skyerise, and IP 87.115.63.172) and that no one has agreed with or supported his edits. I attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but the editor responded to this attempt with juvenile "bring-it-on"-type statements. I commented, "If you do not stop restoring that passage despite the lack of agreement from other editors, I will be forced to seek some kind of sanctions against you." The user's response was, "Go for it." So, here we are.

    (NB, the warning for edit warring above is not the only one; the user was warned as an IP too, see here).

    FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure that if you look closely at Timothy Leary: Revision history you'll find that i'm no more guilty of edit warring than FKC, who has stopped at nothing to dispute any contributions i've made to the article. FKC has previously edit warred to remove cited information claiming that Leary was a philosopher and is now making these accusations against me simply for restoring uncited text that was deleted without there ever being a consensus to do so in the first place. --AcidRock67 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We are dealing here with a specific issue - your edit warring to restore uncited text - not everything that either of us has ever done at the article. During the course of this dispute, you have reverted against multiple users; I have not. The article was semi-protected specifically to stop your edit warring, not to stop mine. I stopped reverting; you didn't. I attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, you responded with a series of ridiculous or provocative comments. Three users disagreeing with you is good enough reason why you should not be restoring uncited content. The other issues you mention have nothing to do with this one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You did not use the talk page to try and resolve the dispute, you only used it to complain about my restoration of deleted content and threaten me with a block. And as far as I can recall you reverted multiple users when you were edit warring to remove cited information from the article despite the fact that nobody at the time agreed with you. You are hardly in any position to accuse me of edit warring when you are guilty of the same behavior yourself. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I pointed out to you on the talk page that you were reverting multiple users, and that this is not acceptable behavior. That is attempting to resolve the dispute. You, as noted, responded to me with a series of nonsensical comments (for example, "I'm not willing to cooperate with you", indicating a lack of interest in discussing the content dispute properly). I did not "threaten" you with anything. Not being an admin, I of course cannot block you. You simply do not seem to realize that we are not here to discuss everything that ever happened at the article; we are here to discuss your behavior during a recent dispute, and the unacceptable things you have done during the course of that dispute. Complaining that I might have done bad things at some point in the past is not going to help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If only you tried practicing anything you preach, you wikipedian bureaucrat. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And there we go again: rather than say anything relevant that deals with the issue at hand, you respond with a pointless, uncivil comment and a personal insult. As I've said, you've shown a lack of interest in resolving disputes properly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever, I am done arguing with you. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=720311268"