Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:El_cid,_el_campeador reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: )

Page: Omar Khadr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: El_cid,_el_campeador (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I did not do so, as I observed this edit war rather than being involved in that section of the article. I checked, and neither of the WP:INVOLVED editors have opened a discussion on this passage AFAICT.

Comments:

Technically, I suppose the user has not yet violated the 3RR rule, but deleting this material three times in just over 3 hours without initiating a talk page discussion shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Also note the user's response upon receiving an edit warring template from another (involved) user:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]

All within 15 minutes of receiving the edit war warning. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• There was never a content dispute, I was only reverting those edits because the other editor reverted the entire edit when he only disputed part of the edit in question. He also accused me of being a sneaky vandal against good faith, but that is neither here nor there. I added the content in question back almost 7 hours ago, though. So I think the entire purpose of this is moot. And apparently you reported me about 5 or so hours after the problem was already fixed. I guess that's all I have to say. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In what sense was the problem "already fixed"? Just because nobody has yet restored the content you deleted does not mean the issue is over. You were still edit warring, and your insistence that another editor re-introduce only part of the content you deleted is not a justification for you to revert their edit - the correct course, per WP:BRD, would have been for you to move the discussion to the talk page. Also, seven hours is not really enough time to declare your edit war over, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I ADDED the content back. I was accused of edit warring because I REMOVED the content. Ergo, the content was restored to before I began 'edit-warring.' I have added the content back and it is at the status quo. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You added some of the content back, while leaving some of the content deleted. You were still edit warring over the content you left deleted; it is not at the "status quo" reflected in my initial report. See also this [9] response to this [10], which demonstrates (i) that the issue was still active on the talk page, although you have pretended that it was resolved, and (ii) that you misunderstand the whole point of BRD - it is always appropriate to revert an entire WP:BOLD contribution that proves controversial, so that it may be discussed to arrive at a consensus that can be reflected in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• BRD, as always, is a suggestion not a rule. But anyway, I added back the content about the prosecutor being dismissed, which was the content in question. I summarized the content of the quote and removed the quote, which was not the dispute. I did not remove any information, I simply summarized an off-hand quote in a non-encyclopedic tone. It still states that he supported water boarding as a tactic. I don't see what the issue is, and as I said, it was resolved over 7 hours ago. If you are going to split hairs and say I didn't technically add the content back, then that's fine but I'm not going to entertain that. If you can get an admin to ban me for this, congratulations. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether you will be blocked or not, but you were clearly edit warring, the issue is not resolved according to the other involved editor, and you seem remarkably unrepentant about that. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:TheGracefulSlick and User:AcademicHistorian in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We're in the middle of a lighting storm here so I'm shutting down. I'll be offline until tomorrow. I will say that the issue was indeed raised on the talk page [[11]]. I asked him to discuss it on the talk page and I started the thread. Despite El cid, el campeador's claims, the issue is not resolved. One part of the contested edit (the prosecutor)had been restored, but the second contested removal (the stepping down of the attorney) has not been restored or discussed. As I've stated, I have no issue with the removal of the material about Khadr's clothing. Meters (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

* I don't know what content you are talking about that I didn't add back. I added back the paragraph you objected to me removing. If there is something else you want added back, please do so yourself, since I don't know what you are referring to. I think it should be clear that I am no longer contesting any edit and you can add back what you want. This issue has been resolved for almost an entire day, and in fact I've stopped editing the article altogether (at least temporarily). This entire thing is overblown and the only reason any of it happened is frankly you because you accused me of being a sneaky vandal when I was acting entirely in good faith and trying to simplify the article. I don't know what else I can do? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Meters told you about three times that the attorney's stepping down was significant, and should be in the article; you cut this when you deleted the paragraph about the sartorial issues in the court room - three times - and never restored it. I have since done so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I realize the mistake now. I thought the first paragraph was only regarding the clothes, and missed the rest. Since prosecutors ARE attorneys and the prosecutor stepped down, saying to add back the part about the attorney stepping down didn't make me realize my mistake. But since you added it back, the situation is still solved. This board isn't for reporting people who you don't agree with, it's for resolving issues. And the issue has been resolved since yesterday, when I attempted in good faith to add the content back. This report is still completely unnecessary. This is pretty stupid. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

:: In my view, The GracefulSlick is edit warring without reading or responding to edit descriptions. For example, in the Lede it includes a sentence about the 10.5 million settlement twice. This is literally the exact same sentence 2 times for no apparent reason twice in the Lede. The GracefulSlick reverted my removal of the disputed comment without giving any reasons whatsoever. I believe this is disruptive. El Cid Capeador has been making productive and necessary edits as the article currently includes duplicated information, and far too much intricate detail. It also has a very pro-Khadr POV tinge. AcademicHistorian (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Strike comment by sock of blocked editor

User:Tart reported by User:STSC (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

User Tart has persistently removed the official name "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" from the introduction text. STSC (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
My edits involves a lot of modification in the introduction, including fixing redundant sentences, wrongly placed footnote, add new info, shorten introduction, and deleting info which had been repeated three times in the introduction and infobox. Please observe WP:BRD-NOT. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Instead of reverting my edit by stating "not an improvement" without backup, please edit and or explain. Please observe WP:BRD. "BRD is an optional method. No one is ever required to follow this process." please observe WP:OWN, a wiki policy, "you should not undo their edits without good reason." Instead of entering an edit war, it is NewYorkActuary who started an edit war without any backed reasons in reverting my good faith edits. And STSC put me on the list but not also NewYorkActuary shows his allegation deeply biased. In fact in STSC's recent active involvements on the page Hong Kong, he was complaint by other users as "long-term political agenda editor" in the editorial note [19]. Tart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern here is you persistently removing Hong Kong official name from the introduction. You made no attempt to discuss in the article's talk page, ignored my warning and keep deleting it regardless. STSC (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead of reverting my entire edit without any backed reason, you can simply edit it in order to improve it. I see no point why my edits such as fixing misplaced footnotes should be reverted by solely a reason "not an improvement". I deeply understand your concern, that's a concern widely shared among Mainland Chinese people on Hong Kong people and thus trying to keep emphasizing Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China at least for three times in the article introduction (and more and more and more onward in the article). That feels repeated, redundant and awkward. Nevertheless, I am open to discussion in how to improve the article but undoing all of the constructive edits is by no means an improvement as well. After all, my description "Hong Kong is an autonomous territory in East Asia." is true, strong, and straightforward.Tart (talk)

I did not revert your edits, other editors did. I have started a discussion in the talk page but you have not participated. The issue is not about mentioning Hong Kong is a special administrative region. The issue is you removing the full official name in the first sentence of introduction. According to your edit-warring pattern, you would continue to delete it if the full official name is restored; to prevent it happening again is the purpose of my report in this AN/EW here. I have the feeling that you delete the official name for political reason. STSC (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently NewYorkActuary started an edit war and your decision to place only me on trial is biased without doubt. For you being formerly complaint by other editors as "long term political agenda editor" (in page Hong Kong's edit notes), I wish you could understand that there is editorial concern in fixing footnote and deleting repeated information. And instead of offending WP:OWN, a wiki policy, "you should not undo their edits without good reason," you and NewYorkActuary are more than welcome to edit the topic in order to improve it.Tart (talk)

I don't discuss here the personal attack aiming at me elsewhere. The Hong Kong official name had only appeared once in the introduction so I don't accept your excuses to delete it. Just to remind you why it should appear in the article: "Where an undisputed official name exists, it should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention" per WP:ON. STSC (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AcademicHistorian reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Sock blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

SPA appears to have achieved a 5-peat. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction: 6-peat. This SPA just won't stop. Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• The admin who addresses this will likely check out the page's history. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I would hope so! Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We've tried different versions with you. The main point is, we absolutely can't have the exact same sentence listed 2 or three times in the Lede. For example, the 10.5 million settlement and "murder in violation of the laws of war" sentences are both referenced over and over again. Also, there's no point in including every single piece of intricate detail in the Lede. Like Khadr getting transferred in between different Canadian prisons. That's what the rest of the article is for. Lastly, the Lede should be in chronological order. Currently, it's in some random back and forth order which is very confusing to readers. Rather than status-quo stonewalling, please just work with other editors to fix these blatant problems. AcademicHistorian (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about your dissatisfaction with the lede (which rests on untrue claims: nothing in the lede is currently repeated, nor is the prison transfer mentioned, nor is it "in random back and forth order"; various editors have actually been improving the lede in between your edit war deletions).

This venue is for your gratuitous edit warring, SPA. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's still tons of repetitions and redundancies.

"Murder in violation of the laws of war" is states twice.

The settlement from the Canadian government is stated twice.

Pleading guilty is stated twice.

The interrogation of Khadr is stated three times.

The length of the detention is stated three times (twice listed as 8 years and once listed as 10 years).

Repatriation and returning to Canada is stated twice

Guantanamo Bay is stated twice.AcademicHistorian (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Except for "pleading guilty" and "murder in violation of the laws of war" (about which I agree), the rest of those claims are false. "Khadr was interrogated by both Canadian and US intelligence officers" is not the same statement as "the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the Canadian government's interrogation ... offend[ed] the most basic Canadian standards". "Held for ten years" is not the same as "after eight years in detention, Khadr pleaded guilty" which is not even related to "agreed to an eight-year sentence", and "possibility of a transfer" is not the same as "returned to Canada". "Detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay from the age of 16" is not the same mention as "the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the Canadian government's interrogation of Khadr at Guantanamo Bay" - and indeed, it seems important to let the reader know, in the latter cse, where Canadian officials interrogated Khadr.

Anyway, even if everything you said had been true and relevant, it would not justify five reverts in the course of a few hours. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're really splitting hairs by claiming that a series of virtually identical sentences are not similar enough to just combine them.

Also, you have reported El Cid earlier on the same article, and it seems you have been edit warring with him/her as well. It seems that your way to win an edit war is to accuse everyone you're edit warring with of exactly what you are doing.

Maybe you could try a more collaborative approach. Try retaining elements of the edits of others. In this way, you would be more likely to achieve consensus. AcademicHistorian (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, dude, those are not "virtually identical sentences". A sentence that says that Khadr was interrogated is not the same as a sentence that says that, eight years later, the SCC found that his Charter rights were violated in the way he was interrogated. A sentence mentioning that he took a plea deal based on the possibility that he might return to Canada is not the same as one mentioning that he returned to Canada. With an attitude like that, no wonder your edits are being reverted.

And I haven't been edit warring at all, in any way. I haven't violated 1RR, even, and I haven't been slomo warring either. I just notice when other editors are too lazy or blinkered to do anything but revert without discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I left the above-listed EW warning after this series of 3RR violating edits to the same article for which AcademicHistorian has been reported for this new violation:

• [29]
• [30]
• [[31]
• [32]
• [33]

A day or so later and we're seeing the same eahviour with the latest set of edits. Meters (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked sock indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:185.121.173.172 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

Page: Granada War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.121.173.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has refused to use talk page on any of the 4 articles they are currently edit warring.

Comments:
IP185.121.173.172 is currently edit warring on Granada War(8rvs!), Battle of Río Salado(6rvs!), Battle of Covadonga(3rvs), and Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War(5rvs!) and does not appear to be interested in discussing their editing. IP185.121.173.172 has been warned by two editors of their behavior and has ignored said warnings. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur. It seems the IP desperately wants to receive a "STOP" sign on his plate. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hour CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Wikipediaeditperson reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: 31 hours)

Page

2018 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wikipediaeditperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 21:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Please research the structure of F1 before continually reverting my changes - the strategy group is above the WMSC in F1 decision-making - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10954446/f1-in-2018-halo-device-confirmed-by-fia-for-next-seasons-cars"
2. 12:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "changed source to the official FIA source, as the FIA set and apply the F1 rules, and they have confirmed that the halo WILL be in for 2018."
3. 11:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverting again, as the source is from the OFFICIAL F1 website, and doesnt mention the World Motor Sport Council. Please read the sources before reverting."
4. 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC) "reverted, as having read the source, it says it WILL be introduced for 2018"
5. 19:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC) "halo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:57 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2. 12:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps reverting despite warning. They refuse to accept the problem with their edits. No listening to comments by other users. Tvx1 14:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Clear reverts at 19:33, 11:43, 12:42, 14:21. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:Zabboo (Result=Blocked)

Page: Jay Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of Kellymoat's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]

I don't believe anyone else involved broke the 3RR rule. Recently, I reported Kellymoat for something similar, although it turned out he was just reverting blank vandalism. I think this report is completely fair - I am not out to get Kellymoat, but I have noticed that he has a pattern of engaging in edit wars and breaking the 3RR rule, and has a result has been blocked from editing three times. I don't think behavior like this is acceptable. Zabboo (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I told you before, you'd be better off not stalking my edits. I mean, isn't this the 3rd time you've reported me? The only person who has reported me more is User:MariaJaydHicky

Anyhow, both the Jay Park and the Roc Nation articles have both been page protected because users keep adding unsourced content.

In the spirit of full disclosure (and to save "Zaboo" the hassle of trying to prove me wrong), Jay Park has signed with Roc Nation. But details have not been released, therefore we have no way to know if it is to the label or not. I mean, he could have signed with the same branch Robinson Cano signed with. Kellymoat (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Second time I've reported you. As far as I know, the content of the edit war doesn't matter here. You reverted edits six different times within a period of 48 hours. How am I in the wrong for reporting you? Zabboo (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. Second time. Cjhard reported me and you. That's my mistake, for confusing times you and I were reported together vs times you reported me. Kellymoat (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And since page protection was added (at my request) - how many times have I (or any user) reverted Jay Park? In fact, since page protection was added, how many times was Jay Park even edited? Kellymoat (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you break 3RR or not? Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Of course they did, and, as usual, has a million excuses why they edit-warred. Kellymoat should be blocked and for a significant length of time given their troubling history.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted someone else to confirm it, Bbb23. Blocked, because this is like the fourth or fifth instance of 3RR violations. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kyrilo36 reported by User:Chalk19 (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Angelique Rockas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kyrilo36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC) "Dating maintenance tags" by AnomieBOT, after COI and placed by myself.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "... Chalk`s observations are refuted by the fact that all scanned data was initially available on the Scotiish Theatre Archive" - Kyrilo36 removed COI and OriginalResearch tags.
2. 15:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791794268 by Chalk19|" - Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating "rv - COI etc. see talk page".
3. 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "I am not promoting aynone, I live in London and have followed Ms Rockas work- are you disputing the data" -Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating "new user who out of the blue supports the promoters of Rockas".
4. 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "I live in London and have followed Ms Rockas work- are you disputing the data- Ms Rockas has her Wikipedia entries on her Twitter page - so was told about this" -Kyrilo36 removed again tags put back by myself stating " rv out of the blue new user removes COI in en- & el WPs !!!"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] [47]

Comments:
Everything started after I gave very serious evidence (in Greek WP as well) that two users have confict of interest with their subject (Angelique Rockas), plus that the article is to a great extent the product of original research. So I placed the relevant tags. User Kyrilo36, with no contributions so far, appeared out of the blue in both en- and el- WPs and started immediately (after a brief stop to the talk page that she/he supposedely "refuted of Cahlk19 accusations" -but did not wait for an answer) removing COI and Original Research templates repeatedly and with great zeal. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PS. Judging from this comment to User Kyrilo36 Greek talk page, it is beyond doubt that IP 82.1.219.198 belongs to Kyrilo36 who just forgot to sign in. 82.1.219.198's global contributions are similar to those of user Johanprof. At the same time, this lead us to the conlusion that Johanprof, user Amfithea (who have been named by myself as having confict of interest with their subject, Rockas), and Kyrilo36 of course, either they are the same person, or they act together, in company. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked sock indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Rogue Traders (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791848040 by Davey2010 - You are edit-warring, not me. Kindly refrain from reverting this now; your actions leave me no choice but to get a third party involved"
2. 21:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791844428 by Davey2010 - User is reverting something that has no logical sense, or reasoning that is correct. The information on this section must be from the 2001-2009 run, not after it."
3. 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791836717 by Davey2010 - Don't agree to the reversion - The Episode List should be for the show between 2001 - 2009, not 2014 - 2015. Why is this not being questioned?"
4. 19:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Episode list */ Deletion of Section - Does not correlate to the show's independant series between 2001-2012; they seemed to be aimed towards the sections used for BBC's Watchdog. Removing them, since I can't see why no one questioned this before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is currently edit warring and although they've come to my talkpage they're still hitting revert, I'vetold them multiple times per BRD to go to the tp yet this has been ignored, Tanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: He did say to go to the talkpage on the article, but the user wasn't making logical sense with reverting the edit I made. I cannot understand why they reverted my edits, because their reasons for doing so made no sense at all. My reasoning is as follows:

"The episode list should be focused on the show's run between 2001 - 2009, when it was an independant programme and not a part of BBC's Watchdog, after the latter was revamped with a new set up. When Rogue Traders was merged to Watchdog, the programme ceased to be nothing more than a multi-part segment of Watchdog. As such, the Episode List as it is, is not only incorrectly set out, it does not correlate with the programme during its independent run on BBC 1. Keeping it on and saying "as no episodes are on the actual Rogue Traders website meaning the pre-watchdog eps may have just been put on the Watchdog website" is not a good reason at all. What is there must be deleted; the only episodes that should be there are those from the 2001-2009 run, not during the Watchdog era; those ones are films for the Rogue Trader segment, not of the programme itself."

• Page protected I know both of you very well, and I don't want to see either one of you under the block hammer :-). I've fully protected the article for two days; can you agree to shake hands and work together peacefully on the article's talk page and come back in two days with an agreement reached? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

::*FWIW I probably wouldn't be blocked but if I were I wouldn't really care but sure I'd rather have this resolved peacefully instead of it being dragged on so thanks for your help! :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oshwah - I'm so sorry!, This was entirely my error - The Main programme ended in 2010 and the episode lists would be for the Watchdog version, unfortunately I did have trouble understanding the editor which didn't help, Could you unprotect the article as the editor is indeed correct this list belongs on Watchdog not here, My sincerest apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Truthwillsetyoufree123 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

Page

Jamie Leigh Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Truthwillsetyoufree123 (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 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Biased and slander- see actual sources."
   2. 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "3 sources justify the EEOC statement and I have included the EEOC determination letter."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Please see EEOC actual court document. Wikipedia needs to at least be accurate."
   2. 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Not Accurate- Jones had PTSD per 9 doctors at trial."
   3. 01:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   4. 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
   5. 01:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "The title to the amendment was missing"
   6. 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Midding another law that was passed due to Jamie Leigh Jones testimony to congress"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Amendment is relevant to this Wikipedia."
   2. 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "I used a court document- the origional EEOC determination. The WSJ is inaccurate. Please see the actual EEOC determination"
   2. 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Added Congressman Ted Poe's Testimony on Case"
6. Consecutive edits made from 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Actual EEOC determination letter- Some of the articles lied about the determination. It was in Jamie Leigh Jones favor."
   2. 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "EEOC findings were inaccurate. They are now corrected per source."
   3. 23:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
   4. 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jamie Leigh Jones. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Hopefully, I did this right. Not used to using Twinkle for this. New user has an obvious agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The agenda is to have accurate and unbiased information on this page. This page is laden with inaccurate information. I have corrected the information and added multiple sources. Please do kindly allow the corrections as this is a living person that deserves accurate information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• The user has stated on my talkpage that they are the article subject, but I'm not sure this needs to go through those channels for verification at the moment since this seems like a pretty standard new-user issue. The user will hopefully learn about policy through explanation/discussion on article and user talk pages, and with that goal in mind I think temporary semiprotection might be better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:RichardKnight reported by User:Insertcleverphrasehere (Result: )

Page

Guizhou Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RichardKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Referencing"
3. 11:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 04:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Referencing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"
2. 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Steve Quinn attempted to engage with the editor about the issue on the talk page, unsuccessfully.

Comments:

User is very keen on not having page curation tags on the very under-sourced new article they have created on the Guizhou Institute of Technology. I warned them about 3RR when they were at 3 reverts, and also told them on their talk page (after the second removal) that removing tags from the article when the issues haven't been addressed is not appropriate. The user does not seem keen on actually improving the article, but rather seems devoted to disrupting the page curation process instead, going so far as to use the edit summary of "Referencing" to refer to their removal of tags. The editor's talk page clearly demonstrates a history of disruptive behaviour before this incident. Please block. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring is even worse over on the first version of the article before it was draftified: Draft:Guizhou Institute of Technology. With removal of tags having started there, as well as removal of CSD tags. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OnkelCharlie reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: )

Page: Braydon Hobbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OnkelCharlie (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]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55]
8. [56]
9. [57]
10. [58]
11. [59]
12. [60]
13. [61]
14. [62]
15. [63]
16. [64]
17. [65]
18. [66]
19. [67]
20. [68]
21. [69]
22. [70]
23. [71]
24. [72]
25. [73]
26. [74]
27. [75]
28. [76]
29. [77]
30. [78]
31. [79]
32. [80]
33. [81]
34. [82]
35. [83]
36. [84]
37. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [87]

Comments:
User:OnkelCharlie and User:Zamekrizeni have been engaged in an edit war over what I think are fairly minor changes to the article Braydon Hobbs for more than ten days. Yesterday I warned both users about edit warring and reverted the article back to a version that included Zamekrizeni's additions and OnkelCharlie promptly reverted my edits. Both editors' actions deserve scrutiny, but in my opinion Zamekrizeni at least tried to communicate with OnkelCharlie via edit summary and on the user's talk page and via edit summary. He/she also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. He/she should have also started a conversation on the article talk page, but I contrast this behavior with OnkelCharlie, who has yet to communicate rationale behind his/her reversions. In my estimation, the two versions of the article are fairly close and aren't worth an edit war. As an uninvolved editor, I don't really care what action is taken, it is just disruptive and needs to stop. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Amaury reported by User:Ynoss (Result: )

Page

List of programs broadcast by Disney XD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:172.164.21.136 reported by User:Ynoss (Result: )

Page

List of programs broadcast by Disney XD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

172.164.21.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: