Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
→User:Chopps2018 reported by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →User:Miledisco reported by User:Aqooni (Result: Filer blocked): Adjust block duration to 48 hours (second block for the same article) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 347: | Line 347: | ||
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}} [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}} [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Miledisco]] reported by [[User:Aqooni]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Miledisco]] reported by [[User:Aqooni]] (Result: Filer blocked) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tog Wajaale}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tog Wajaale}} <br /> |
||
Line 367: | Line 367: | ||
:[[User:Miledisco]] did not break 3RR at [[Tog Wajaale]], but it appears that [[User:Aqooni]] has been reverting steadily since 29 March. There might still be time for him to avoid a block, if he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
:[[User:Miledisco]] did not break 3RR at [[Tog Wajaale]], but it appears that [[User:Aqooni]] has been reverting steadily since 29 March. There might still be time for him to avoid a block, if he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:: On that page [[Tog Wajaale]] see the talk page, me and the other user involved (Linkjan2014) in the dispute came to an agreement, about including the [[Gadabursi]] presence on that page. We also did consensus on my talk page with a third user present ( See impartial moderator) ([[User talk:Aqooni|talk]]) . My main issue was [[User:Miledisco]] completely disregarding the discussion on the talk page and deleting the sources. They already received a warning for edit warning.[[User:Aqooni|Aqooni]] ([[User talk:Aqooni|talk]]) 05:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
:: On that page [[Tog Wajaale]] see the talk page, me and the other user involved (Linkjan2014) in the dispute came to an agreement, about including the [[Gadabursi]] presence on that page. We also did consensus on my talk page with a third user present ( See impartial moderator) ([[User talk:Aqooni|talk]]) . My main issue was [[User:Miledisco]] completely disregarding the discussion on the talk page and deleting the sources. They already received a warning for edit warning.[[User:Aqooni|Aqooni]] ([[User talk:Aqooni|talk]]) 05:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' Filer [[User:Aqooni]] blocked 48 hours per my above comment. I'm also leaving a warning for [[User:Linkjan2014]]. The relative numbers of residents from various tribes in individual towns may not be a matter that requires a statement in Wikipedia, especially in cases where the sources are poor. Be careful about importing personal causes into Wikipedia. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==[[User talk:Davi58148687|User:Davi58148687]] reported by [[User:In Memoriam A.H.H.]] (Result: Blocked) == |
==[[User talk:Davi58148687|User:Davi58148687]] reported by [[User:In Memoriam A.H.H.]] (Result: Blocked) == |
Revision as of 19:01, 31 March 2018
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
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.
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.
| ||
User:MapReader reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Not blocked - use dispute resolution)
- Page
- The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- MapReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832558920 by Drmargi (talk) Restore WP:Commonality edits made this morning. Further revert by Drmargj would breach 3RR."
- 18:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832557525 by Drmargi (talk) No - first use was British, longstanding mix. WP:Commonality is preferable to your edit warring"
- 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Season 2 (2017) */Wp: commonality. Reverting editor warring unnecessarily."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) to 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832529708 by 79.169.136.217 (talk)"
- 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832523893 by Drmargi (talk) unnecessary, WP:commonality"
- 05:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832468767 by Drmargi (talk) hence the right thing to do is restore what was there before your recent editing."
- 05:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "rvt inappropriate changes; talk page."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Seven reverts in a 24 hour period and no sign that it will stop if the other editor he's warring with (Drmargi) decides to revert again. They've both been going at it for more than a day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. There has as yet been no breach of 3RR by either party. Your diffs overlook my having raised the matter on the article talk page, and on the other editor's talk page, neither of which she has yet meaningfully engaged with (and on the article page not at all). In summary, this article (concerning a US/UK tv drama co-production about the British monarchy) contained a mix of British and American English usage. To resolve the matter I traced back the edit history and identified that the first post-stub version that introduced an Engvar was early on 7 November 2016, which used British English. Hence I applied the MoS and edited the article into British English. This was opposed by Drmargi who edited the article into American English. I raised the matter on the talk page, and restored the mixed usage version as a compromise. This was rejected by Drmargi who again edited the article into American English. As a further compromise this morning I applied WP:Commonality and edited the disputed wording so that common UK/US terms were used instead. Once again Drmargi edited back into American English, with three reverts so far in the past few hours. In the circumstances I am surprised to find that I, rather than the other editor, am the subject of this report. In any event, administrator assistance to resolve the dispute would be helpful, as I have run out of compromises to offer. MapReader (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone want to explain how "has received critical acclaim for its directing" is American English and "was praised for its direction" is British English? --NeilN talk to me 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Those aren't the words at dispute. If they got caught up in today's to-and-fro it will be because Dmargi added them into her mass-edit removing my Commonality changes in favour (/favor) of US English (or more likely, made her mass-revert by returning to an earlier version of the page and the acclaim edit got rowed in by accident). Perhaps she can explain why? The "acclaim" words were added originally by an IP editor (User:79.169.136.217) who spends his/her time adding identical wording into numerous tv and film pages, and there are a number of editors including me who have been restoring the original wordings. As far as UK/US goes it's a red herring (in any event when I removed the IP edit originally, Dmargi suppported the change). MapReader (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Now that the article has settled down, perhaps this matter is best moved to the disputes page? MapReader (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Not blocked NeilN talk to me 14:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry reported by User:Saqib (Result: Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry warned)
- Page
- Shehbaz Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832885781 by Saqib (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832890574 by Saqib (talk)"
- 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
- 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
- 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"
- 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This newbie keep adding unsourced material which is sensitive to a BLP on a high profile Pakistani politician, despite two warnings. Saqib (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Warned Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry strongly warned not to add unsourced content to a BLP NeilN talk to me 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:FriendlyRiverOtter reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Warned)
Page: Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FriendlyRiverOtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# | Time | Revert | Diff | Previous version |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 10:09 | Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7% | [1] | |
2 | 10:22 | Line 183: rearranges text to put popular vote first | [2] | |
3 | 10:36 | Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up" and removes "landslide" | [3] | |
4 | 11:46 | Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7% | [4] | FRO was reverted at 10:30 |
5 | 11:53 | Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up" | [5] | FRO was reverted at 10:43 |
6 | 11:59 | Line 56: removes 90.9% | [6] | 90.9% was added at 10:53 |
7 | 12:33 | Line 56: removes 90.9% | [7] | FRO was reverted at 12:21 |
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
Comments:
FriendlyRiverOtter is a tendentious POV pusher. His purpose in this episode of edit warring is to remove "landslide victory" from the article. He attempts to circumvent WP:BRD by starting a discussion and then edit warring. He justifies edit warring by claiming that we're discussing the changes. When in fact, his efforts are being resisted by several editors and he is editing against consensus.
He is attacking the article on multiple fronts to push his POV and obscure his actions. As you can see from the above table of edit warring, he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts. He is also using confusing edit summaries.
FRO has been reported for edit warring before just a mere 3 weeks ago [10]. This time we need to send a clear message to this editor that pretending to discuss issues while edit warring is unacceptable. This is not a content dispute. Protecting the page would be a mistake and only embolden this editor.– Lionel(talk) 01:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I invite an administrator to please take a look at the Ronald Reagan edit history and Talk page.
Yes, correct, there was a previous charge of edit warring. The decision by an administrator was 'No violation.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive362#User:FriendlyRiverOtter_reported_by_User:Rja13ww33_(Result:_No_violation)
Earlier today (March 29) on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review page, I started a topic entitled "article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#article_on_Ronald_Reagan_controlled_by_handful_of_pro-Reagan_partisans
Two separate persons inform me that FAR is not a dispute resolution process, which I can accept. I would like to know what is an appropriate dispute resolution process where I might ask for help, for our Ronald Reagan article really is controlled, primarily, by three pro-Reagan partisans. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at this edit by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832726042&oldid=832724993
(Reverted good faith edits by FriendlyRiverOtter (talk): Lead with EC as that is what is most important in a US presidential election. (TW))
Even though in two edits, I had included a new source and included what the source states are the accurate numbers for percentages of popular votes, my fellow editor reverted all of it.
Please particularly look at this edit, also by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832728821&oldid=832727605
Drdpw added to our lead: "winning 44 of 50 states and receiving 90.9%."
Does this clarify the topic, or is it rather an example of sloganeering and politicking? Now, the source does include in a table that Reagan won 90.9% of electoral votes. But if this is read quickly in our article, people are likely to assume it refers to the popular vote. Percentages in text typically refer to the popular vote. And Reagan certainly didn't win 90.9% of the popular vote (!) (!) (!)
I have strived to remain middle-of-the-road and moderate, I think largely successfully. However, I welcome any constructive criticism of edits I have made. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the edit in which I perhaps most pushed the envelope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832738653&oldid=832737619
I do not think excessively. And if it makes a difference, removing the word "easily" from the description of Reagan winning the 1980 Republican nomination seems to have been accepted.
And this is the edit of how I think things should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=next&oldid=832738653
If we're going to say Reagan won 44 of 50 states in our lead, we should also say that the popular vote was Reagan 51%, Carter 41%, and the bulk of the balance to Anderson.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Lionel writes: "he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts."
I used a reference to edit both the body of our article and our lead.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
+++
On March 19, Drdpw reverted my work on the Legal guardian page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_guardian&diff=831166220&oldid=830747707
A page which he or she has seemingly expressed no previous interest.
I sent Drdpw a message to his or her Talk page asking, are you following me about Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drdpw&diff=prev&oldid=831736016
And once there I saw that Rja13ww33 had previously sent Drdpw a message as follows: "Hi. Hate to bother you but if you could weigh in on the Reagan talk page with this on-going thing with NYCJosh, I'd appreciate it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)"
And Rja13ww33 seems to be the third very active member who "guards" the Ronald Reagan page. This may be our best opportunity to get some help. Yes, the page basically needs some adult supervision for a while.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. It seems unnecessary to issue an edit warring block when FRO has not touched the Ronald Reagan article since 27 March. Even so, User:FriendlyRiverOtter is warned that per WP:POV we expect that people will edit neutrally. Whenever FRO does offer his proposals for review on talk pages there is generally a landslide against him. We do not associate neutral behavior with phrases like "cartel of a handful of pro-Reagan partisans." The Ronald Reagan article is covered by WP:ARBAP2 which sets expectations for editor behavior on modern American politics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: RobThomas15 warned)
Page: Back to Beautiful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RobThomas15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [12] no edit summary
- [13] "There's no reason why this page should be redirected."
- [14] "Well then, instead of redirecting, why don't you go look for sources?"
- [15] "Never [going to stop restoring the page]. You're just a big jerk if you don't want the page to be restored."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Comments:
Warned Two editors have used the talk page, RobThomas15 hasn't. They are warned that any more reverts without gaining consensus may result in a block.--NeilN talk to me 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC) NeilN talk to me 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:198.46.126.2 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Harpy eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.46.126.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26],[27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Comments:
Constant re-insertion of statement based on unsuitable YouTube reference (tape of TV broadcast) combined with clear OR (extrapolation based on unrelated source). I don't quite know how to make it much clearer than with the current edit summaries and notes on both their and the article's talk page. Behaviour actually predates with different IP, but seem to be static on this one for the nonce. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Heliotom reported by User:Keivan.f (Result: )
Page: Trump family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Heliotom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 11:24, 20 March 2018
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:39, 29 March 2018 Reverted good faith edits by Keivan.f (talk): Unexplained change.
- 12:44, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833121841 by Keivan.f (talk)unexplained
- 12:47, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833122784 by Keivan.f (talk)there a specific admin note, but fine, go ahead and see who they side with
- 12:50, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833123453 by Keivan.f (talk)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: 1
Comments: The edit that I have made to the article is not controversial in nature as the family concerned in this discussion is of American and German ancestry and the information is sourced in the body of the article. I added the same piece of information to the infobox and he reverted and asked for an explanation, which I provided later in my edit summary. He reverted again without a clear reason and started edit warring with me on another article. Eventually I left a message on his talk page and asked him to discuss the issue on the article talk page. He blanked his page, reverted my edit again, called me Idiot and wrote: "fine, go ahead and see who they [administrators] side with". He also reverted my edit one last time without providing an edit summary. I want the administrators to judge and see whether my edits were disruptive or his, and, based on our policies, I really don't think that it's appropriate to insult other users and call them "idiot". It's worthy to mention that he was previously reported for such behavior in the past. Keivan.fTalk 20:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This is all very energetic. Changes or specifications of some thing as fundamental as national background surely need a source. Citing ‘look at the article’ doesn’t cover it.
A technical but Seeing as the suggestion’s been deleted by himself before, -maybe Keivan.F should apply WP:brd before bothering everyone with this nonsense.Heliotom (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not up to you to decide whether it's nonsense or not. The point of the discussion wasn't about nationality, it was about ethnicity, and that his grandparents were German is a fact, based on the sources that we have in numerous articles related to him. By the way, it's not the right place to bring this up. You should have discussed it on the article talk page when you had the chance instead of reverting my edits multiple times. Keivan.fTalk 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I should point out that your claimed attempt at resolution is nothing of the sort, being 1. A warning 2. In the wrong talk page and 3. About a different article.
- In both rticles you’ve comprehensively ignored the principle of WP:BRD, even more egregiously on the Family of Donald Trump where it is clearly noted that changes after a reversion must have consensus, and come running to file a report here for edit warring that you initiated.
- Still, things seem to have calmed down, and I see you have posted a discussion on at least one of the issues, to which I have replied. Hopefully we can find a common ground that satisfies everyone.
Heliotom (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I warned you about one of the articles on your talk page. What would be the point of another warning when you had already erased the first one? And yes, I opened an RfC as that's the most appropriate way to solve the issue when two users do not agree over the subject. I had engaged in an edit war already and I don't intend to get blocked. Keivan.fTalk 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:38.122.227.253 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page: Vassar College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.122.227.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
...and several other identical edits going back to at least June 2017
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]
Comments:
It may also be necessary to semi-protect the article as it appears that this editor has also used other IP addresses, too e.g., 68.173.106.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 week For disruptive editing. NeilN talk to me 14:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:101.189.113.1 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101.189.113.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On going discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Kayfabe memories
Comments:
I'm an uninvolved editor but saw this edit war going on in my watchlist. Despite four different users disagreeing with his edits, an on-going talk page discussion, and a 3RR warning, this IP has reverted well above the limit. Nikki♥311 06:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am reverting vandalism. Talk to the others about proving the source to be unreliable. Until then, the source stays. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- People disagreeing with you =/= vandalism.★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obviously not vandalism NeilN talk to me 14:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Three IP editors reported by User:220.253.123.249 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Roy Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.247.70.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 58.96.106.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 139.195.213.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [45]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Many other edit warring on the page itself.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Page protected NeilN talk to me 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Foolishgrunt isgay reported by User:TomXP411 (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Hanlon's razor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foolishgrunt isgay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see the edit summary on [55]. He knows he's trolling.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]
Comments:
It's been a while since I've done anything on WP, so this might not even be the right place to report this.
This all started on an Ars Technica forum thread, here: [57] The user knew his edit would be reverted, but someone obviously thinks it's funny to keep re-posting the same nonsense. And the "isgay" suffix is obviously a personal attack on Foolishgrunt.
I'm suggesting locking the page for a few days to keep the page from continued vandalism. -- TomXP411[Talk] 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
- Page
- Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:23, 31 March 2018 "(I think it is much better and more accurate this way. It is quite hard to say that Greece is transcontinental. It just has a group of islands in Asia.)"
- 04:56, 31 March 2018 "(Why "historically" and why "nation's"?)"
- 04:38, 31 March 2018 ""
- 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss. The Aegean Sea is a border between Europe and Asia. This means that the islands off the Asian coast are clearly located in Asia, not in Europe."
- 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "The lead is just wrong without the reference to the Asian part of Greece. Accept the fact that Greece is a transcontinental country in the same way as Spain."
- 20:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Why "keep it clean"? Look at the Spain article. It has all the transcontinental information in the lead. Get over it and accept the fact that Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes etc are not located in Europe."
- Consecutive edits made from 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) to 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "you've heard what?"
- 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Is Lesbos in Europe? Is Samos in Europe? Is Kos in Europe? Is Kastellorizo in Europe?? Just look at the map. Greece has islands in Asia, like Spain has islands in Africa. Get over it."
- Consecutive edits made from 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."
- 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Greece. (TW★TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Continuous, rapid-fire edit-warring against past consensus. Refuses to discuss. Please see the edit-summary of his/her latest revert. Dr. K. 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN talk to me 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Miledisco reported by User:Aqooni (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Tog Wajaale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miledisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&diff=833263408&oldid=833263335
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833263190
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262917
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El_Bardale [diff]
Comments:
This user has been warned on their talk page for their edits. They have deleted valid sources for their tribal agenda as indicated in their comments on their edits , quoted here"There is no Gadabursi settlement in Gabiley District. Mayor and vice mayor of El Bardale are reer Hareed so the town isn't shared. Stop vandalizing or ill edit Gadabursi pages with my sources." This user has a clear tribal agenda trying to erase the Gadabursi presence in the towns they reside in. Aqooni (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- User:Miledisco did not break 3RR at Tog Wajaale, but it appears that User:Aqooni has been reverting steadily since 29 March. There might still be time for him to avoid a block, if he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- On that page Tog Wajaale see the talk page, me and the other user involved (Linkjan2014) in the dispute came to an agreement, about including the Gadabursi presence on that page. We also did consensus on my talk page with a third user present ( See impartial moderator) (talk) . My main issue was User:Miledisco completely disregarding the discussion on the talk page and deleting the sources. They already received a warning for edit warning.Aqooni (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Filer User:Aqooni blocked 48 hours per my above comment. I'm also leaving a warning for User:Linkjan2014. The relative numbers of residents from various tribes in individual towns may not be a matter that requires a statement in Wikipedia, especially in cases where the sources are poor. Be careful about importing personal causes into Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Davi58148687 reported by User:In Memoriam A.H.H. (Result: Blocked)
Page: Wanessa Camargo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davi58148687 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: This One [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329655
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329296
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833325570
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833313700
Davi58148687 has been edit-warring on the Wanessa Camargo article despite being warned.
Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 22:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:InternetMeme reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Adolf Eichmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- InternetMeme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "That's not an appropriate reason to ignore WP:EASTEREGG."
- 00:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "WP:EASTEREGG."
- 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Your tone is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I agree that this isn't an easter egg: Rather, it's WP:EASTEREGG. Please read it."
- 22:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "WP:EASTEREGG"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Adolf Eichmann. (TW)"
- 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Also Admin (it turns out) User:Prodego [58] just told him on his talkpage he was doing things wrong at this page. Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk as well. [59] Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
See Also: ANi they started Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
I haven't undone any edits on the Adolf Eichmann page that were made with any legitimate explanation. User:Beyond My Ken gave the following edit summaries for his edits:
- No explanation
- It's not a fucking EASTER EGG, it's a context-sensitive link. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page DO NOT restore
- you're an idiot
- Still an idiot
Should I really be taking those edits seriously? I don't think it's fair to consider those as legitimate edits, therefore I don't think my revision of any of them should be counted. Therefore, I have not reverted any legitimate edits, and claims of Edit Warring are unsubstantiated.
Secondly, in the preceding comment above, User:Legacypac falsely claims I was "Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk". This is an outright lie, as I have been nothing but polite:
- User:Beyond My Ken gave an edit summary calling me an idiot,
- I responded with an edit summary stating that this was inappropriate
- He gave another edit summary calling me an idiot
- I went top open an issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which said that I should try to resolve the conflict on the user's talk page before opening an incident, which I did.
Kind regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- InternetMeme has apparently failed to notice that several reverts back, I re-wrote the disputed language to avoid the (non-)problem that he was edit-warring over; he just went on reverting, without really understanding what he was doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your "Edit summaries" of those two re-worded edits consisted of:
- "You're an idiot", and
- "Still an idiot".
So the fact that I failed to notice that you'd altered your wording is entirely your fault. Use the "Edit summary" box to actually summarize your edit next time.
InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
There is also a 5th pointless change to the page by InternetMeme just outside the 24 hour window. I hate to see a block but they are not following advice and gave me a nonsensical response to my effort to slow them down. [60] Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note Now that they are talking I'm willing to withdraw this 3RR if User:InternetMeme agrees to withdraw the ANi and stop edit warring. Enough time has been wasted already Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- My response was not at all nonsensical: You tried to say that I claimed the link was an "easter egg", which is not at all what I'm talking about. This is the core of the issue: I'm specifically claiming that it was a ""WP:EASTEREGG", which is a completely different subcategory of concept. People undo my edits saying "It's not an easter egg", having clearly not read the WP:EASTEREGG article.
- Also, you're misrepresenting the whole sequence of events by saying "Now that I'm willing to talk": I was the one who initiated the discussion anyway, firstly by posting to Beyond My Ken's talk page (as instructed by the "Administrator's noticeboard" guidelines, and which he summarily reverted), and then by opening an incident at the Administrator's noticeboard.
- So the statement "Now that they are talking" is completely misleading, making it sound like I'm ignoring the dispute: I've been talking all along.
- At any rate, if Beyond My Ken apolgizes for calling me an idiot, and if you apologize for saying I was "acting like a jerk" (without providing any evidence), then I'm happy to let the matter go.
- Most importantly, two of the edits I reverted were summarized as:
- You're an idiot
- Still an idiot
- It would be absurd to blame anyone for reverting such edits, and therefore neither revision counts towards the 3RR
- I referenced a post to BMK's talk and your reverting his removal of that post as jerk like behaviour. I stand by my assessment. If you want to keep pushing ghis I can't help you. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- If someone complains about a user's conduct on their talk page, it's totally inappropriate for that user to whitewash the problem by simply reverting the complaint. Do you think it's okay to do that? InternetMeme (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:TPG and you came to my attention because I watch his talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh, that's understandable. So now that you're aware that he started the problem by calling me an idiot, you realize that it was completely reasonable for me to point out on his talk page that doing so was inappropriate? InternetMeme (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:TPG and you came to my attention because I watch his talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- If someone complains about a user's conduct on their talk page, it's totally inappropriate for that user to whitewash the problem by simply reverting the complaint. Do you think it's okay to do that? InternetMeme (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- Excuse me InternetMeme, but you're now edit warring on the Controversial Reddit communities article too. Just as you are over various other articles for the same pointy reasons. Frankly, I don't even know why you're editing on the project. Your edits seem all very pointy and not constructive. Your insistence on trivial matters while reverting other, established editors is disruptive. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's not the same thing at all. I'm not undoing the edit, I'm trying to combine the content the other editor thinks is important with the content I think is important. That's just about the opposite of an "undo": It's basic collaboration.
- And don't worry: You don't have to know why I'm editing on this project. We probably have very different priorities, and it's therefore quite possible I woudln't see the point in many of your edits. As another established editor, I also get frustrated when other editors undo my work.
- InternetMeme (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- May I suggest that you raise your concerns at the talk page where multiple users are reverting your edits. Koncorde (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- InternetMeme (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've currently been doing that when revisions of my edits have an explanation. But I feel that revisions that are unworthy of an explanation (or in particular, edits made with an insult in place of a summary) are also unworthy of discussion.
- I will always either leave or try to integrate any revision that is made with an explanation
- You can't require editors to give detailed edit summaries - and the lack of an edit summary is never a valid reason to revert. You are hardly a newbie - you should know better. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring by User:Cullen328. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Chopps2018 reported by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Result: Page protected)
Page: Lawrence Liang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chopps2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [61]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]
Comments:
SPA has continued to edit-war and add contentious material to a BLP without attempting any discussion on the talk page. SPA should be blocked and the page semi-protected by another admin. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Page protected By Swarm NeilN talk to me 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:EdRivers56 reported by User:Kb217 (Result: Note. At ANI now)
Page: Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EdRivers56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]
Comments: This person is literally stalking not only my edits, but removing entire sections from controversy pages of several wikis
Note At ANI now NeilN talk to me 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Kb217 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Note. At ANI now)
- Page
- Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kb217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833420913 by Davey2010 (talk) This is completely false. You have removed entire sections from the controversy area, that have NOTHING to do with what you are stating. The links are directly from the DM as well as other news sources that site that they made those statements."
- 12:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833415444 by EdRivers56 (talk) Undoing 3 entire areas removed by EdRivers who is not only STALKING my edits, but also vandalizing several wikis"
- 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833274550 by EdRivers56 (talk) This is appropriate for this section, because it was DM who did the initial posts. You are stalking all of my edits on every wiki."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
- 12:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ +article"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor is edit warring over at Daily Mail and they show no signs of stopping, I've told them there's various ways to get dusputes resolved however instead of resolving they've just kept smacking revert, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also can someone delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EdRivers56 - Myself and EdRivers56 are accused of being socks, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I deleted that as a completely baseless report before even seeing this. —DoRD (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ah thanks DoRD much appreciated, 15:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I deleted that as a completely baseless report before even seeing this. —DoRD (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Note At ANI now NeilN talk to me 14:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)