EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) Adding new report for Starbucks6789. (TW) |
→User:Starbucks6789 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ): blocked 24 hours (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
This is a [[wp:BLP]] and a [[wp:fringe]] topic. [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 02:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
This is a [[wp:BLP]] and a [[wp:fringe]] topic. [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 02:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Starbucks6789]] reported by [[User:EvergreenFir]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Starbucks6789]] reported by [[User:EvergreenFir]] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) == |
||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Bad Girls Club (season 16)}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|Bad Girls Club (season 16)}} |
||
Line 273: | Line 273: | ||
The ''Bad Girls Club'' pages are plagued with tendentious editors and socks (which is why all seasons but 16 are indefinitely semi protected). [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
The ''Bad Girls Club'' pages are plagued with tendentious editors and socks (which is why all seasons but 16 are indefinitely semi protected). [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} {{u|EvergreenFir}}, you made me watch a trailer for this show. That's almost block-worthy. [[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> 05:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:53, 12 September 2016
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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:Wiki2344 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 31 hours )
- Page
- Julian Penniston-Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Wiki2344 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Right. Learning as I go along. All statements are now clearly proven in MSM citations. There is nothing that is not cited independently. Can we agree on this and get on with life..?"
- 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "The FT already has done. Subscribe and you will see. You are deleting independently cited facts about a person and obviously have a grudge that is making you look stupid. Just as you did when you deleted a public domain photo last time."
- 16:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "No, it is not. I only added facts to the History section. Out of 9 citations 7 are independent and only 2 are from IM (an FCA regulated company). You also removed a perfectly acceptable photo. If you dispute something then evidence it before deleting."
- 15:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "I have added some relevant statements (all cited) after the culling today. I work for Intelligent Money and whilst we did not create this page, as it exists I have to ensure it is accurate. The photo is now in the public domain and copyright free."
- 12:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738671608 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
- 08:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731448011 by ImageRemovalBot (talk) - This image is licenced for use on Wikipedia by the owner - see www.intelligentmoney.com/terms-conditions/ - so I have undone the"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julian Penniston-Hill. (TW)"
- 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Julian Penniston-Hill. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I'm ignoring the personal attack in the 16:45 edit summary; I may 'look stupid'- but I certainly haven't got a grudge! No; this editor, who clearly has a close involvement with the subject insists on repeatedly reinserting cruft, against the advice of other editors, which appears to be intended to promote the subject. The editor has been engaged in multiple discussions (here, here, and here, on Boing! said Zebedee's talk-page. Muffled Pocketed 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
User:TL565 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Meh)
- Page
- Talk:Mike Pence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- TL565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738752667 by Winkelvi (talk) Lol you have zero credibility buddy. Just look at your block log."
- 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738749601 by Winkelvi (talk) Are you kidding me! I was correcting the original time of the post! He thanked me for it!"
- 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Photo */ Correcting original time of post"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments. (TW)"
- 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */ +, customize"
- 21:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Mike Pence. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738611984 by TL565 (talk)don't change others' talk page comments"
- 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by TL565 (talk): He may have thanked you for it, but it's still not allowed - see TPO and when changing signatures is allowed and when it is not. (TW)"
- Comments:
Editor is edit warring over a time stamp he should not have changed and continues to change through reversions. I have pointed out WP:TPO to him, specifically, ""If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information...Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason." Note that he did the same thing at another talk page here [1].
Editor has chosen to ignore the warnings left at his talk page as well as the customized comments I made regarding policy on refactoring talk page comments and signatures. His response to the warnings left for him was to edit war and once again violate talk page refactoring policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Boomerang, Winkelvi own behavior has been questionable lately. For a week he has WP:Hounding User:Calibrador singling out his every move and engaging in wikilawyering in countless attempts to WP:Game the system. TL565 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note Winkelvi's motivation for this is from an earlier feud, so he is now nitpicking my edits for doing someone a favor. Once again, WP:Gaming the system. TL565 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I only see two reverts from that list, not even close to violating the 3RR. TL565 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Policy reminder: Edit warring is not just violating 3RR, it is also a behavior and blocks are often handed out preventatively the disruption such behavior brings. See WP:EW and WP:3RR for the following:
- "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."
- -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have a lengthy history of edit warring yourself. Anyone one with common sense would see that was a courtesy edit. You clearly have a quarrel with me. Again, stop wikilawyering. TL565 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note You are not even the user who's post I changed. He clearly made a mistake with his signature, which he tried to insert but had the wrong time. I kindly just tweaked it to show the original time and he thanked me later. You waited hours to then suddenly get on my case for that. For someone who has accused me of "stirring up dust" in the past, you seem to be doing that right now. TL565 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have a lengthy history of edit warring yourself. Anyone one with common sense would see that was a courtesy edit. You clearly have a quarrel with me. Again, stop wikilawyering. TL565 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
"You have a lengthy history of edit warring yourself."
Precisely why I know what I'm talking about. Regardless of your claimed intentions, TPO and 3RR are clear. I brought TPO policy to you, your choice was to laugh in my general direction ("Lol you have zero credibility buddy." [2]) as well as mock, attack, and threaten in edit summaries ("Are you kidding me! I was correcting the original time of the post!" [3]; "I was doing them a favor genius! One even thanked me for it! Your countless attempts at WP:Gaming the system are not going unnoticed" [4]) Further, it would seem the only one wikilawyering in this report would be you in trying to vilify me (here and at the talk pages of others by making unfounded claims about me: "Something really needs to be done about Winkelvi's behavior. For days he has been WP:Gaming the system singling out a user to serve his own preferences. Now he is sending me bullshit warnings on my talk page for simply correcting the time of some else's posts! One even thanked me for it. He clearly wants to continue a feud with me which I am frankly tired of" [5]). Said wikilawyering also includes bringing up my block log in a manner to deflect from your own behavior and claiming that because your intentions were good the first time you violated TPO, you have not violated policy in the least. You have been warned by three editors in as many days past to stop personally attacking me in talk page comments as well as edit summaries, but you continue with that, too. As far as the edit warring behavior in order to reinstate your violation of talk page policy, I find that to be the more egregious policy vio and behavior issue and I'm happy to let admins/an admin sort this out and do what they feel is necessary and appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)- Once again, you play victim. All one has to do is look at Talk:Mike Pence to see that you are not as innocent as you claim. I'm sorry but pointing out your obvious behavior is not a personal attack. I showed frustration in some comments but there is nothing that went too far. Furthermore, It's interesting how have interpreted my comments from days before we ever had a feud which I didn't call you by name as somehow an attack against you. Today, I really didn't want to have anything to do with you but clearly you wanted continue this quarrel. You waited hours then suddenly Boom! your suddenly on my case over a little time stamp. I have pointed your behavior many times and you never respond to them except play dumb and claim they are "personal attacks" against you. Do you not know what WP:Hounding is? You've done it to another user and now me. You have a clear bias and everyone can see it. TL565 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi is now currently hounding my edits on various pages constantly citing Wikipedia policy because he has a clear vendetta against me. This is not WP:AGF. All one has to do is look at his edit history to see his personal feud with me. This is crystal clear gaming the system and distruptive. TL565 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Modifying other editors' signature timestamps is not appropriate, and edit-warring to maintain this sort of thing is significantly and needlessly disruptive. As it happens, the timestamp on the comment in question was the timestamp from when Davey2010 signed it (diff). While I think it would be fair for him to have backdated his own comment, there was no "mistake" about Davey2010 electing to use the current time as his timestamp. When I modify my own comments, I typically replace the original timestamp with the timestamp at alteration.
Also, bringing up the complainant's interactions with an unrelated third party is not constructive. The question here is TL565's behavior (and, possibly, Winkelvi's motivation for complaining); how Winkelvi and Calibrador are getting along has no bearing on this issue. If there is a problem between them, it can be brought in a separate complaint. Rebbing 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok I will leave out the third party. I apologize if I went too far in modifying the time stamp. I just couldn't help but notice that someone posted his signature incorrectly, then corrected it many minutes later with a much later time stamp. I simply wanted to change the time to which he originally posted his comment. He thanked me and I thought that was that. However, Winkelvi, due to a recent feud we had, waited hours before taking issue with it. He immediately sent me a warning which was not in good faith. Again, he has been using Wikipedia policies to harass anyone he doesn't like. TL565 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and thanks. To be clear, I'm neither asking for nor opposing sanctions here. I'm not an administrator, and this isn't my fight; I just wanted to point out what stood out to me. Also, while you were aware that Davey2010 saw and approved of your change, other observers weren't, and non-technical changes to others' comments are widely viewed with skepticism (and rightly so!). Best. Rebbing 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note I have self reverted and will take it as a lesson learned. I would like to make peace with Winkelvi and move forward from here. TL565 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm sorry but this has to be said .... Are we seriously edit warring over my fucking timestamp.... I mean seriously ? .....This has to be the most stupidiest edit war to date on this project and whilst I appreciate the help here in all honestly it's pathetic from both of you, My reason for not updating the sig was I'd simply forgot but my longer explanation is here,
Could I suggest this be closed and for the love of christ everyone move the fuck on, This really isn't worth edit warring and getting blocked over and needless to say I'm extremely disappointed in you WV,
I would ask whoever reads this report to simply withdrawn it and not block anyone because this is simply stupid, I'm done for the evening. –Davey2010Talk 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Closing, mostly to relieve Davey's heartburn over this particularly pointless incident. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:86.174.240.73 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: )
- Page
- The Shawshank Redemption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 86.174.240.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 21:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 16:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "I have attempted to discuss this MANY times but nobody has bothered to enter the conversation. Don't bother saying "go to the talk page" if nobody answers."
- 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Was told to take it to the talk section, no one responded. So I'm going to keep editing this. It's correct, deal with it."
- 19:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC) "I'm ending the 1990s/all time debate by removing the sentence. It ends now."
- 15:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This IP tries to reslove but no response has given, and contiuesly removing "best film of 1990's". KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Ivano Capuler reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ivano Capuler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "Stop! and wait Administrator who knows Russian in million times better than you"
- 01:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "Administrator who knows Russian on very good level, will check my edit (do not make roolback till this)!"
- 00:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "It was accepted. Relevant material (founder of the fascism gave knowledge how to do better his ideology - Important detail). Mussolini is former Marxist (his way to got knowledge)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Position on the political spectrum */ new section"
- Comments:
Warned by another user, article is under 1RR Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:80.63.3.167 reported by User:Class455 (Result: Declined)
- Page
- ISIL territorial claims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 80.63.3.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "You're the one pushing a politically correct agenda. ISIS, controlling lare swathes of territory in ME, is currently a proto-state trying to organize a true state, which is a factual statement independant whether you'd like it or not. Behave yourself."
- 11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "no, you are initiating a mass deletion, so you MUST discuss it at the talk page before aggressivly mass deleting key informations."
- 10:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "mass deletions in such a dimensions should never be made without a consensus on the talk page"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on ISIL territorial claims. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
POV pushing and also violating the 1RR restriction by ArbCom on pages related to the Syrian War, despite being warned about the 1RR being imposed. Class455 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I respectfully suggest that there is no need for this- at this time (although absolutely within the leter of the law)- but the other editor that was edit-warring was also warned for equally poor conduct (and yet has not been reported- why not?). Also, the other editor has displayed a far more WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude than the IP did. Thirdly, nether of them have edited the page for hours: they have already been warned by an Admin, a discussion has taken place and an RfC has been opened. Muffled Pocketed 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Declined Per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi NeilN talk to me 16:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Plus, Class455, you give an edit warring warning and then immediately report them here? Why? --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Because I saw the 1RR warning on their talk page. I was about to withdraw the report but you beat me to it NeilN. Class455 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Class455 I believe the IP did not revert after the initial warning. I appreciate you helping out in such a contentious area but 1RR has the same expectations as 3RR. The editor has to revert after being aware of the policy (either via a past or current warning). --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Because I saw the 1RR warning on their talk page. I was about to withdraw the report but you beat me to it NeilN. Class455 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Rupaulisgreat reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rupaulisgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]
Comments:
The user also replied on the talk page here. Chase (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Hopefully time enough to change their attitude. NeilN talk to me 00:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring by 202.159.166.64
User:202.159.166.64 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )
Page: Budd Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.159.166.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
(user's talk page) [17]
Comments:
This is a wp:BLP and a wp:fringe topic. Jim1138 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Starbucks6789 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Bad Girls Club (season 16) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC) to 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) to 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) to 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC) to 12:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ""
- 12:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
- 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- 19:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bad Girls Club (season 16). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 23:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"
- 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"
- 01:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"
- Comments:
Edit warring over spelling of Adryan/Ad'Ryan. User was warned and claimed they'd continue to edit war anyway ([18]).
The Bad Girls Club pages are plagued with tendentious editors and socks (which is why all seasons but 16 are indefinitely semi protected). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir, you made me watch a trailer for this show. That's almost block-worthy. NeilN talk to me 05:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)