Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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


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

Additional notes
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of 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:DJTonyPrep reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)

Page: Schooled (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DJTonyPrep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 02:10, May 22, 2020
  2. 14:40, May 22, 2020
  3. 01:33, May 23, 2020
  4. 04:03, May 23, 2020
  5. 04:16, May 23, 2020
  6. 14:02, May 23, 2020
  7. 14:07, May 24, 2020
  8. 11:03, May 26, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. editor YoungForever's warning about a separate article's edit war (subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep]
  2. my warning about Schooled edit war (also subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep)

Comments:
User is currently edit warring (and violating 3RR) at multiple other television-related articles, including The Good Fight, Single Parents (TV series), Carol's Second Act, and Man with a Plan (TV series). Please see user's contributions. Repeatedly blanks any warnings, with the edit summary "Deleting comments from an abusive Gpedia user." Will also likely remove the 3RR discussion warning I will place on editor's talk page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree that this editor is edit warring – at a minimum should be warned. If they re-revert again, they should get a 24-hour block. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to see what the editor's next actions are. If they stop reverting, then there is no problem. If they revert further, then a block is needed to prevent further disruption. The proverbial ball is in their court. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I have also warned the user about blanking article talk pages and reminded them that removing a comment from their own user talk page is deemed as acknowledging it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Editor warned again today after going back to the edit warring. [1]. IMO, if there are any further reverts without discussion, a block—at least a partial block from the articles involved—will be necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Editor has made another revert, even after breaking 3RR and warning on editor’s talk page by User:C.Fred. Editor has also continued edit wars on the other television articles I mentioned. Don’t see why this hasn’t led to a block yet. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Agree – after WP:SNEAKY waiting for some time to pass after this report was filed, editor went right back to edit warring – should definitely be blocked now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • 'Another' revert by editor today on Schooled. Also continuing the same disruptive behavior on the other series as well. Note left on talk page by User:C.Fred was blanked and obviously has not changed user's behavior. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
          • As the user said repeatedly on his or her own talk, he or she is continuing to do as he or she pleases. So, pretty indicates that he or she is not going to stop. I also want to note there is an open discussion over by Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section that the editor still refuses to participate in. — YoungForever(talk) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
            • As an uninvolved editor I find myself wondering why this editor has not been blocked. It's clear from the article history that the editor is edit-warring and has been for days. Is no uninvolved admin interested? --AussieLegend () 16:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
              Also uninvolved, but saw the multiple reverts and lack of talk page engagement on The Good Fight so came here to report it. DJTonyPrep needs an indef until they commit to discussing rather than edit warring. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You all need to get over yourselves. I am not violating any Gpedia standards. And I have every right to post here like you do. The information I am providing in my edits are factual, and in line with other edits that have been made from other users. Not liking what I post is not a just cause to delete it. I will continue posting as I see fit as again, everything I am posting is in line with Gpedia's policies and procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talkcontribs) 16:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

DJTonyPrep As I have explained on your talk page you are indeed violating policy by edit-warring. --AussieLegend () 16:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
And as I've explained, so have you. I am officially warning you to stop harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talkcontribs) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The above are, sadly, typical responses from the editor. --AussieLegend () 16:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Editor is planning to make another account to continue with with same edits. — YoungForever(talk) 17:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours The editor's conduct shows flagrant disregard of WP policies, guidelines, and norms. Their conduct at WP:AN shows unwillingness to work with other editors in the cooperative environment of Gpedia.[2] A site block is necessary to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:8804:1000:A9F:8076:9B5A:D243:FD6E reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Blocked 72 hours)

Page
The Casagrandes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:8804:1000:A9F:8076:9B5A:D243:FD6E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */It does belong! It is a crossover episode between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", so it does belong!"
  2. 02:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Would you just stop deleting this?! This needs to go in here! And I told you enough why it needs to go in here, so stop it!"
  3. 02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */I'm telling you for the last time that this needs to go in here. This is a crossover special between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", so that's why it needs to go in here. I don't care what the sources say. They need to update their data by adding in the episode. But I am telling you it needs to go in here. It is in the "List of The Loud House episodes" article and it needs to go in here also."
  4. 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */I am going to keep on adding this in here after you editors delete this until y'all understand that this is a crossover episode between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes." It makes sense that it appears in the "List of The Loud House episodes" article and this article since it's a crossover episode. And I know it is a crossover episode because I watched a commercial of the special and they said this was a crossover episode between the 2 shows. So, please, leave it alone...."
  5. 04:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */No, you need this in here. It's in the List of the loud house episodes article and you need it in here also. The reason why it is in both articles is because it's a crossover special between "The Loud House" and its respective spinoff, "The Casagrandes". That's why you need it in here and in the other article. If this didn't air, then yes, you wouldn't need it in both articles. You wouldn't need it at all. But because it aired, you need it in both articles. You really nee..."
  6. 04:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Since this is a crossover of "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", I decided to add in the special that aired tonight."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Blocked for 72 hours. They've been edit warring across this range (and likely others) for long enough.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 02:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Debresser (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4] First addition of contested material
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Nishidani added content.[10] IMHO that content shouldn't be in the article, and I removed it,[11] with an explanatory edit summary. Per WP:BRD I would have expected Nishidani to take it to the talkpage, but instead he restored it,[12] with a sneer in the edit summary, violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I removed it again,[13] with an explanatory edit summary, asking Nishidani to take it to the talkpage. He restored it again,[14] again adding a bad faith and uncivil sneer in the edit summary. Since the issue I have with the edit had not been addressed by Nishidani, I removed it again,[15] while at the same time posting a warning on his talkpage[16] and an explanation on the article's talkpage,[17] both including a mention of WP:BRD. Nishidani added it again,[18] prompting me to open this report as my efforts to make him see the error of his ways seem to be unsuccessful. He also posted a wall of text on his talkpage in which he explains why he thinks I have been bad editor ever since I joined Gpedia back in 2008,[19] completely missing the point that it is his behavior in this case that is problematic, as I explained to his in my reply.[20] Although if we are going to review past behavior, this editor has been chastised many times for his aggressive and unpleasant interactions with his fellow editors, including twice recently at this very article talkpage.[21][22] Debresser (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No action. How is this a revert, and how (seriously) is this the "previous version reverted to"? Both users have reverted three times AFAICS, so it's kind of ballsy for one of them (Debresser) to take the other one (Nishidani) here. Please note that WP:BRD is not policy, and please see especially What BRD is not. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC).
This is not the "Three revert noticeboard", this is the "Edit warring noticeboard".
I know that WP:BRD is not a policy. Does that mean it should not be followed?
The number of reverts is not the sole indication of behavioral problems.
In any case, Nishidani just pointed out to me that I made a factual error, and I don't oppose the edit any more.[23] Debresser (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I've edit-warred three times in the last 14 years, two in 2007, and one 2015/16 when I preferred a sanction rather than reverting back a piece of disinformation some sockpuppet introduced. I said I preferred a penalty of a month rather than restoring, by a further self-revert that would have brought me within the law, what was a patent falsehood. I was reluctant, Debresser, to allow you to drag me into that practice. I was adding a new source to the text, which you clearly in your first revert had not read: you just reverted me on sight, as is, unfortunately, one of your tendencies in my regard. Recently you wrote on your page to another editor offended by your edit summary:-

Policy disagrees with me, but I too stand behind the edit summary. A bit of shaming won't hurt editors who don't true (sic =try) to find sources and prefer to simply remove information.

You now add that I should be ashamed of myself for correcting you.

Notwithstanding your advice to him, you broke your own counsel, and preferred simply to remove information rather than find or even read a source someone else found, at Wadi Qana. And you did this fresh from being warned to desist from playing with the 3R rule to get your own way, something that earned you a weekly suspension two weeks ago. As in 2011 (see my page) and in later years, you have consistently managed to win a plea for mitigation for numerous infractions, and yet jumped in on the Wadi Qana page a week later and broke your promise, that reduction of a sanction was conditional on your correcting this habit, to take more care in the future.
As I have asked you repeatedly in the past: do not revert unless you have studied the topic as closely as the editor you intend to revert. And for the record, you made 4 errors in your reverts, not one, and that is why I felt compelled to fix the text several times. If you disagree after one revert, go to the talk page and explain the problem. Reverting and then citing WP:BRD is weaponized editing that, in practice means giving a preponderance of gaming power to anyone who likes to revert , no matter how good the edit objected to may be, and drag the improving editors onto the talk page while refusing to budge, until they meet your personal terms (which I almost always find obscure). It gives reverters enormous, unwarranted power to block serious page improvements. That is also one reason, I guess, why it is not policy. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You continue with bad-faith accusations, patent lies and well-poisoning. At least I made an honest mistake, and admitted it right away, while you continue with your problematic behavior ever afterwards. That says all there is to know about you, basically. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless you can document (a) where I accused you of bad faith (b) lied blatantly and (c) engaged in Poisoning the well you should strike the above comment out, for I asked you as late as April, and several times before over the years not to engage me personally or make references to your private views about me, but to stick to the content substance of editing. If you don't retract this arbitrary mudslinging, then I think this should all be reviewed by User:Boing! said Zebedee and Black Kite, your undertakings with whom not to editwar just a few weeks ago were broken by your behavior at Wadi Qana these last two days, behaviour that provoked a futile edit-war on frivolous grounds, rather than for any comprehensible policy-based concerns about content, with no apparent function, it strikes me, but to make for the nth time a case that I am someone whose work is deleterious to wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, since you ask for it.
  • "where I accused you of bad faith" In the following edit summaries [24], [25] and this edit on the talkpage [26] where you claim without any proof whatsoever that I didn't read the source and that my revert was a "blind revert".
  • "lied blatantly" In those same edits containing false claims, and where you claim that I broke a recent promise. The truth s rather the other way around, namely that I kept my promise. Which is precisely why I came here, and did not revert your edit a fourth time, even though you made it four times.
  • Which brings me to the following, that it indeed would be a good thing if there would be a "preponderance of gaming power to anyone who likes to revert", since that is nothing other than saying that an editor must show consensus for any change he makes that is challenged, which makes eminent sense and is completely in accordance with Gpedia policies and guidelines regarding consensus.
  • You "engaged in Poisoning the well" when you started mentioning a recent conflict I was involved in, and decided that you need to express your opinion regarding how I handled that and other conflicts, here[27] and on your talkpage.[28]
  • And last but not least, "do not revert unless you have studied the topic as closely as the editor you intend to revert" is a rule of your making that I think we can all agree is not fair nor justified. Editors may be experts in certain topics, but be ignorant as to Gpedia policies like WP:NPOV or WP:V, for example, and may and should be reverted by any editor here, completely regardless of their lack of expertise in that field. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, Debresser, this is the edit-warring noticeboard. It's not the "various complaints about users" noticeboard — that would be ANI. The reason I mentioned the 3RR at all was that both of you had reverted three times — you had edit-warred equally. And I kind of doubt you followed the link I gave, What BRD is not, you give no sign of it. Please, both of you, be done at this noticeboard and take any further discussion of who should be ashamed of what elsewhere, if you must. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
Another bad faith statement ("And I kind of doubt you followed the link I gave, What BRD is not"). What is going on with Gpedia these days? In any case, the report has become moot. Unwatching this page. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Fan of Mahabharat reported by User:Divyam Seth (Result: indef block following CU results)

Page
Pandava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fan of Mahabharat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Pandava. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Dear Sir, The user User:Fan_of_Mahabharat is engaged in edit war. I have reverted his edits so many times, but he is reverting my edits on page pandava. I gave him a warning on his talk page and advised him to develop a consensus on such edits where editors have different view and told that 'articles should also cite secondary sources' but he deleted the warning without any reply. Also, the user has removed all earlier warning from his talk page. please do the needful. Divyam Seth (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Divyam Seth, please do not assume that this noticeboard is governed by a man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This report is completely inadequate; Divyam Seth, next time you drag someone to one of these boards, please do your homework. You disregarded the standard formatting that was handed to you, and where you were supposed to list a significant number of diffs. You did not do that. Nor, by the way, did you add a diff of "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"--surprise, there's nothing on the talk page. In other words, both the report and your behavior in the article are sorely lacking.

    On the bright side, a few IP edits in the history made me wonder about the Fan, and CU confirms they have at least one other account (though that one not active in this article) and have edited while logged out during this edit war. That is sufficient to drop an indefinite block on them. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ericwilcox reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)

Page
Franklin Templeton Investments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ericwilcox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959005104 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk)"
  2. 18:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959003696 due to last user's spam removal of any comments relating to the recent racial issue. Instead of removing valid article additions, discuss your objections on Talk page. DO NOT REMOVE ADDITIONS WITHOUT CONSENSUS."
  3. 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959001285 by NedFausa (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Franklin Templeton Investments. (TW)"
  2. 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "/* May 2020 */"
  3. 18:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Franklin Templeton Investments. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Racial matter */ reply"
  2. 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC) on Talk:Franklin Templeton Investments "/* Racial matter */ reply"
Comments:

Wilcox has been reverting edits (even reverted Nicolao) as well as not responding on talk page. I don't see a good faith attempt at building consensus. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 18:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Block applied only for the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kipps20 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

Page
Half a Sixpence (2016 musical) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kipps20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 02:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) to 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    1. 02:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Yorkshire Amateur Premiere */"
    5. 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Characters and cast */"
    6. 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959087081 by Kipps20 (talk)"
  2. 02:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959082912 by Prahlad balaji (talk)"
  3. 02:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continuation of edit war, please see previous report/block at Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive406#User:Kipps20 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked). Adding amateur production against guidelines, even after repeated warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The user literally has no other activities than adding a certain amateur performance to the article on this play. Previously blocked for that. According to the guideline, we don't include amateur productions. Probably an indef block is needed at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hewston Astro reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: Partial block from editing )

Page
Christian Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hewston Astro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Maintaining precedent with similar cases (e.g. Emmett Till, etc) I have added the ethnic backgrounds of the parties, and included Amy Cooper's name in the body copy as her name is used as a redirect term but not reestablished in the article itself."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) to 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    1. 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
  4. 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "The article failed to call out why Christian is notable in the first place and did not call out Amy Cooper by name. I'm using Emmit Till as a reference, Carolyn Bryant is referenced in the article. Amy Cooper plays a similar part in this article and must be included to maintain integrity."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Edit warring warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Central park incident */ re BLP and UNDUE"
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is a partial block that only affects their ability to edit Christian Cooper. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:ABHINAV1498 reported by User:Pablomartinez (Result: Blocked WP:NOTHERE)

Page
Prithviraj Chauhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ABHINAV1498 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    1. 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 958804072 by Utcursch (talk)"
    2. 18:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959225259 by ABHINAV1498 (talk)"
    3. 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Multiple Source defined that he is rajput and so the most prominent evidence is more faith and already discussed in edit supporting link is attached from big information agency no edit further is required"
  2. 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "new section source defined already discussed in edit and proper link attached"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User seems to be trying to railroad his edits rather than build consensus. PabloMartinez (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Paolo Peace reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: No action)

Page
Paul Ré (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Paolo Peace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    1. 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "addressed issues"
    2. 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "The promotion of peace and understanding has been an integral part of the Art of Paul Re since 1971. Read his peer-reviewed Art, Peace, and Transcendence and his Leonado articles to support this."
  2. 18:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "The promotion of understanding and peace has been an integral part of the art of Paul Re since his first works in 1971. Read peer-reviewed Art, Peace, and Trancendence and his Leonard articles."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Paul Re. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Seem to be a promotional account, see also photo uploads of adverts of the artist, had been explained twice why the section about the price itself is off topic to the biography, does EW. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment The editor needs to have been warned about edit warring before reporting them here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: No action at this time but the editor had better start taking the advice on board. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Youaretheoneinmymind reported by User:Pampi1010 (Result: No violation)

Page: University Athletic Association of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youaretheoneinmymind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:33, 25 May 2020‎ (UTC) "User:Youaretheoneinmymind edited out the corrections I made for wrong grammar, and insisted his version"
  2. Consecutive editing done from 19:09, 27 May 2020 to 19:11, 27 May 2020‎ "User:Youaretheoneinmymind was not responsive to my call for proper editing. He kept on reverting back his version with unrelated and unsourced version. The user also has poor grammar"
  3. 07:39, 25 May 2020‎ (UTC) User also made unnecessary changes in a different page UP–UST rivalry, possibly just to annoy me.

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

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Consecutive edits count as a single revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I mistakenly put the issues in the reverts section when it should've been in the edit warring section. Could someone please look at the issues one more time? Thank you! - Pampi1010 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pampi1010: Still no violation. They have not made three reverts within a 24-hour period. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, the last diff you gave, 07:39, 25 May 2020‎ (UTC), is a good edit. They fixed a MOS violation with a date range. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh okay. That's just sad. His editing and grammar are awful. Look at this one 13:28, 20 May 2020‎ (UTC). If you'd also check out his Talk page, you'd notice that he never responded to any issues that were raised against him. I just have to endure his awful editing and keep an eye on him. — Pampi1010 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Covenantfk reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: )

Page: Sani Daura Ahmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Covenantfk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Initial series of edits: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (user's updated version is clearly a promotional BLP violation).

Comments:

  • Covenantfk has communicated with Ed6767 on the latter's user talk page to indicate that they "have direct permission from the source whose biography is being edited" indicating that the subject has given the editor a document that they wish to use as their Gpedia biography. The newly introduced material is clearly a resume and unsuitable for Gpedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    WikiDan61, clearly disruptive editing and probably WP:NOTHERE other than to add this unsourced info both in violation of WP:BLP and WP:COI, maybe even WP:NOR or a copyright issue if it'd been copied from an autobiography Ed6767 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zeus Maximus reported by User:Dharmabumstead (Result: Protection, Warning)

Page
List of Perry Mason episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zeus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC) "STOP destroying salvageable material until this is resolved, please. Undid revision 959287687 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
  2. 01:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC) "Much more work to re-add than delete if someone else edits in the meantime. Please stop destroying useful work. Undid revision 959284494 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
  3. 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC) "Will await dispute resolution to add; please don't destroy in meantime. Undid revision 959248835 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
  4. 04:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 959097227 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
  5. 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "If it please the court, Mr. Burger seems to have forgotten that someone looking at this article is obviously seeking information about individual episodes. Why shouldn't this information therefore appear as best evidence? Undid revision 959076542 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
  6. 00:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpedia:Spoiler - Undid revision 959049798 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Added DRN notice"
  2. 01:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop adding 'victim' and 'murderer' in the episode list */"
  2. 04:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC) "Added RFC"
Comments:

Added 'victim', 'accused' and 'murderer' to the List of Perry Mason episodes page with no context. It was so ugly I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it. He keeps adding it back. I've requested RfC (no responses), dispute resolution, and now page protection. Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Page has been fully protected until the dispute is resolved Ed6767 (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: Page protected two days by another admin. User:Zeus Maximus is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Dbrodbeck reported by User:Permareperwiki1664 (Result: )

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

The user continues reverting edit, claiming there needs to be a consensus however I have faced no other opposition to Criticisms on Richard Dawkins, therefore I recognise this as a consensus and I believe anyone would too.

There is an ongoing discussion about whether to include controversies but that is it. Criticism has not been raised by anyone else, therefore this must be a consensus however I would like to request outside help to settle this. Dbrodbec is just blatant edit warring at this moment.

He has reverted my edits twice now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 28 May, 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted twice, as there was no consensus for the changes. I then stopped. I have attempted to engage on the talk page. Please see the talk page, there is more than me who is asking for consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.