Revision as of 14:00, 21 October 2017 view sourceRenamed user ExPsittacine (talk | contribs)16,254 edits →User:Atmnn reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: ): Not a happy chappy.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:29, 21 October 2017 view source Acroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators233,221 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 411: | Line 411: | ||
.—] (]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC) | .—] (]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|North Korea and weapons of mass destruction}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chernobog95}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
# 10/20 | |||
# 10/20 | |||
# 10/18 | |||
# 10/18 | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' , warned for related reverts and first here | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' and further discussion on user talkpage. The word "lie" shows up more than I like to see. | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
Slow edit-warring to insert a specific quote, along with accusations of bad faith when confronted. Something odd is also going on with {{user|Lescandanave}} who was previously edit-warring over the same thing, initial edit and two reverts on 10/17. There has been a tendency to revert on other NK-related topics, but as the basis for my concern proved to be mostly incorrect, I have not pursued those. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:29, 21 October 2017
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
Other links | |||||||||
IP:92.194.54.218 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Protected)
Page: Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.194.54.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per here an experience IP which is hoping from one IP to another.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
We may need a range block on this IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No need to block anything, because 1. Doc James did not ask first, he reverted first. 2. Doc James claimed side effects were removed, while they were in fact merged 3. Doc James claimed trial at discussion on the talk page of the article collides, time wise, with me telling him to ask first, if he doesn't understand the world around him, not revert first 4. That article is now full of unsourced, and in fact wrong, percentages in regard to side effects, uses silly abbreviations, has no sensible structure, cites /only/ an arbitrary selection of many dozens of drug interactions for no good reason whatsoever, and I've lost count of what else. Besides a ton of style and white space issues to horrifying to even think of. Which leads me to 5. I won't be editing again any time soon. Go enjoy your burnt soil, sit in your own shit. Have fun. Great way to treat experienced, knowledgable editors, by the way. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours " is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Replied on the IP's talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours " is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is ongoing and needs action. Please. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. Do act, but act blindly. Make especially sure not to check the actual content of my edits, in comparison to the state two days ago, else you might find I actually improved the situation; except I had to do it over and over again. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Update Still zero response on the talk page by the IP and another 4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James and Jytdog: I've put this under full protection to give a possible rangeblock discussion time to conclude. This is without prejudice - I'm merely noting the back and forth as evidence of a dispute; I have not reviewed diffs in detail (no time, sry). Full prot should be removed when a decision has been made over blocking/rangeblocking. Samsara 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Semi protection would have been sufficient. But sure that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Dispute -> full protection, per policy. Regards, Samsara 14:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Semi protection would have been sufficient. But sure that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- "zero response on the talk page" is bullshit if you take a look at my summary lines: I actually kept your substantially wrong and otherwise bad summary in the heading until there was no more point to it whatsoever. Same goes for the interactions, that section was fully reworked, not simply removed. In vast contrast, you didn't provide any sensible summary line on your last revert whatsoever. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- And sure, /you/ say "semi protection would have been sufficient" so you can keep up your bad work. Got to be kidding me. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Naturally, I kindly request the most recent vandalistic reversion by Doc_James, done just before the page was protected, to be undone, and thereby the last good version to be restored. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I'm mostly here just to watch some drama, but I would like draw attention to the incivility of some of 92.194.54.218's edit summaries. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – Fully protected three days by User:Samsara. It's unclear why there is such a big fight over something that seems resolvable. The IP is trying to prove that IPs should be respected but by methods that are unlikely to work: being very aggressive, using lots of personal attacks, making charges of 'vandalism', and suggesting that the other party should be banned. "Bugger off, I get it. Registered idiots can jam whatever sensible edits, don't need to explain their reverts, don't need to comment their vandalism, as IPs are 2nd class editors. Same old, same old." . EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Their main effort appears to be to try to remove the side effects from the lead. We generally put both the medical uses and the side effects in the lead per WP:LEAD (and this is done if 100s of medication articles). This was explained to them and they persisted without any effort to develop consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:M.Billoo2000 reported by User:TheGreatWikiLord (Result: No violation)
- Page
- Multan Sultans in 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "repeated info as of now, and too early to create a new page. already tried to discuss."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
- 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Please also see Multan Sultans, 2018 Pakistan Super League, and 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft, 2018_Pakistan_Super_League#Venues, and Peshawar_Zalmi_in_2018. Constant trolling and edit useless criticizing such as User_talk:TheGreatWikiLord#Multan_.27Sultans.27.3F.
Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, but there is disagreement as to when articles ought to be created on new teams. This kind of thing should be worked out by consensus. The thread at User talk:M.Billoo2000#Request for Comment on his behavior is an example of how *not* to do it. See WP:DR for other options. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc_James reported by User:92.194.54.218 (Result: Protected)
- Page
- Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Doc_James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
All reverts done today (19 October 2017) and yesterday (18 October 2017), four-ish in total, with virtually zero constructive work.
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
All diffs done today (19 October 2017), equals all diffs after and including revision 806027301.
- Comments:
Keeps reverting tons of proper editing without comment or communication, then blames me. Please see edit history of article, alongside with these explanations and collections of edit differences Talk:Oxcarbazepine#Summary, User_talk:Doc_James#Shoot_first.2C_ask_questions_later., and the above statements in his gross attempt to actually ban me. I did explain my actions in summary lines. I completely overhauled the article. However, Doc_James keeps reverting all changes without any sensible comment whatsoever. His different options would be to first ask on user talk page, so he can receive an explanation on what he doesn't understand, and to apply the fixes of minor issues he finds in large edits or consecutive edit bundles, instead of reverting them fully. No attempt to seriously communicate has been done whatsoever, apart from citing "zero response" to a talk page section which wasn't in the least bit relevant any more at that time; see my response there. No change in lack of sensible use of summary line has been implemented, either. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pertains to issue above.
- This IP has made more than 8 reverts in that time period. They have been reverted by three different editors (with me being one).
- I started a talk page discussion yesterday.
- I have not surpassed 3 reverts in 24 hrs. Nor Have I insulted anyone involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Doc_James did reversions with IDs 806055504, 805963222, 805959693, 805899611. Thats four. Accidentally counted a self-revert first, too. Why those reversions are malicious is as outline above.
- As much as I didn't want to comment on this as I am an uninvolved editor (and also, not and admin), I feel like like maybe a third-opinion might help instead of just involved parties going at each other. I have no knowledge of the subject area so I cannot comment if any of the additions/removals are factually wrong or not.
- I took some time to compose a timeline which might help in assessing this matter:
- 10:14, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' first revert
- 18:47, 18 October 2017 - IP's first revert
- 18:51, 18 October 2017 - IP posts on Doc James' talk page under the title Shoot first, ask questions later.
- 18:55, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' replies asking why interactions and summary in the lead were removed
- 18:56, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' second revert
- 19:00, 18 October 2017 - Doc James posts on the talk page of the article asking the same question under the title Summary
- 19:21, 18 October 2017 - IP explains the edit on Doc James' talk page
- 19:23, 18 October 2017 - IP's second revert
- 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' warns about 3RR on his talk page
- 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' third revert
- 19:52, 18 October 2017 - IP complains about the reverts on Doc James' talk page
- Further edits by IP on the article
- 11:24, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' fourth revert
- 11:34, 19 October 2017 - Samsara applies page protection to Oxcarbazepine
- 11:38, 19 October 2017 - IP replies to Doc James' question on talk page of the article
- 11:46, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' replies to IP's answer
- 12:04, 19 October 2017 - IP informs Doc James about edit warring noticeboard report
- 12:10, 19 October 2017 - IP further defends his edits on talk page of the article
- Edits by Doc James: I feel this edit here by Doc James was inappropriate. The revert undid all the edits done by the IP whereas the edit summary only addressed a part of the revert. The part it addressed was also incorrect, as the IP pointed out, it wasn't removal of the "side effects", it was a merge. This was a repetition of the previous revert and didnt seem to provide any further reasoning. Same for this edit. Not sure about this edit since I dont understand the context of that edit summary.
- " since I dont understand the context of that edit summary", well neither do I; it's incomprehensible. All I see is, that it undoes all the work again. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Edits by IP 92.194.54.218: From a cursory look over edits, I feel they were justified and accurate to their edit summaries (at least, the ones which focused on content and not talk-backs to reversions). The edit summary in this edit was uncalled for. There's no need to be throwing insults at people. Also, Doc James' edits are not vandalism. From WP:VANDAL, vandalism means "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". I am sure Doc James does not intend to defeat the project's purpose.
- Well, frankly, the purpose of the edit which "was uncalled for" was twofold, equally to vent and to protest. While I do see that I should apologise, I still don't truly want to. IP edits are subject to completely unexplained and arbitrary reversions all the time; never any questions beforehand, never any consideration for the big picture by fixing minor mistakes and thereby keeping the improvement. The only thing which makes this incident a staggering example is that I showed even the slightest amount of persistence and two reverters were involved. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think its best that IP's edits are restored (since they appear to be constructive and their arguments against Doc James' concerns seem valid). As for any sanctions or blocks, I'd say there's no reason for such action. I'd prefer if the only end result of this is that the page becomes better for the readers. Doc James' made the edits due to his concerns about the IP's edits. The IP made edits because they felt it made the page better and blocking them would just mean shooing away another editor who intends on improving the encyclopaedia. Although the situation could've been handled better had discussion started earlier on without any reversions, both editors had good intentions. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am confused. Doc James originally reported 92.194.54.218 (above) and now 92.194.54.218 is reporting Doc James as a separate incident. Is there more to this than a tit for tat reprisal? Would it not make sense to consolidate the two discussions into a single thread, assuming this one has any possible merit at all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Citobun reported by User:STSC (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page: 2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user has been persistently and indiscriminately reverting edits with wild accusations and repeated personal attacks on other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs)
- I apologise for the reverts. However, this comes after YEARS of dealing with this user's disruptive editing. The reporting user is a long-term political agenda editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she has been sanctioned in the past for agenda editing with regard to Falun Gong topics, and has been reported numerous times for pushing a low-level, long-term, pro-Beijing campaign of Misplaced Pages censorship that is blatantly incompatible with the spirit of a 💕. Removing photos of the Taiwanese president without any reasoning grounded in Misplaced Pages policy, removing mention of the Taiwanese government for no reason – it all just amounts to disruptive, low-level vandalism. Secondly, I have not made personal attacks on other users and I object to that unsubstantiated allegation. Complaining about political agenda editing, a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, does not constitute a personal attack. Lastly I suggest the closing admin Ctrl+F my talk page for "STSC" for an idea of this user's inclination toward reporting me for objecting to his/her groundless censorship. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – 24 hours. I suggest that Citobun lay off the abuse of STSC in the edit summaries ('long term political agenda editor'). It does not clarify the issues for the closing admin, and if it were taken to ANI it is unlikely that any action would be taken against STSC on those grounds. The issues you were warring about on this article could be settled by ordinary WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:ArtemTacoLover reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ArtemTacoLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale."
- 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale. Do I need to repeat again?"
- 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Stop."
- 19:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Xbox 360 E console is still on sale."
- 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Xbox 360. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Xbox 360 E */ new section"
- Comments:
User continues to revert without telling the difference between a company's production line versus units still on the shelf. An attempt at a Talk page discussion was ignored. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
User:GoguryeoHistorian reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Blocked )
- Page
- South Korea–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- GoguryeoHistorian (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:
The user simply deletes a whole passage, which is relevant to the article, as can be seen in similar articles, and then continues to threaten me and accuse me who reinstates the sourced content of "pushing POV and vandalising". Many unrightful threats have also been issued by him in the edit summaries. My edit-warring warning on his talkpage was simply deleted and then copied into my own talkpage by him. Akocsg (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- At first i have started a disccusion, second i said you that the source does not mentione your claims, third, you use non reliable sources(turkish newspapers..). Again, this has nothing to do with modern relations between s.korea and turkey. Also the source does not support your claim at all. You broke the 3th rever rule, you are not willing to discuss but you claim to be right. You was already many times blocked, and you are blocked on "de.wikipedia" aswell. You was already involved in many other edit-wars and you was currently warned by an administrator because of distruptive edits. Stop it. --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The user above apparently is turning out to be a sockpuppet user and ethno-POV account on a mission. Some other users already observed the same and reported him here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/213.162.72.246 and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian
Regards Akocsg (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week GAB 01:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Semi)
- Page
- 1066 Granada massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2405:205:220F:87E:0:0:174D:D0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806129676 by Operator873 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 22:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Unsourced edits */ new section"
- Comments:
Previous reverts at . Warned at agtx 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Unsourced changes and 3RR violation by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:124.106.252.87 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: )
- User being reported: 124.106.252.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Page: 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He keeps changing the images in 1993, removing Pat Nixon’s image for no reason, he keeps changing people’s nationalities from the U.K. (e.g. English to British), Russian to Soviet (stop doing that from a previous IP with the same 124.106.xxx.xxx behaviour from articles before 1991.). Please help. Gar (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Joe V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Montego Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Joe V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "talk page open if you wish"
- 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "notoriety established"
- 06:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Notability established. One person is an Actress in Indonesia with a wiki Page and the other is a notable individual who meets requirement of notability."
- 05:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "External articles were provided establishing the individuals notability as per the guidelines of Misplaced Pages."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 05:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "ew notice" 1st EW notice
- 05:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Montego Bay"
- 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ reply"
- 06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Montego Bay." 2nd EW notice
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Discussions were had on User talk:Joe V
- Comments:
- Edit warring by Joe V also on
- Mandeville, Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Order of Distinction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Byway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Oshwah~ 08:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that 3RR was also reached by Joe V at Mandeville, Jamaica. ~Oshwah~ 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Brownlife reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: Both warned)
- Page
- Tanya Plibersek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Brownlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "stop edit warring. it was already in article. You deleted it. i disagreed and restored it. Now take it talk if you so please"
- 08:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "It was already in the article. You deleted it. We can *talk* if you want. But do not keep edit warring."
- 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805918552 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) stop edit warring."
- 21:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805590769 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tanya Plibersek. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
N/a – Brownlife has refused to provide a reason for their edits and incorrectly claims the onus is on me to get consensus for the undiscussed changes.
- Comments:
Brownlife wants to add Tanya Plibersek's husband to her article's lead, despite him already being mentioned in the infobox and in her "personal life" section. I have told them several times that this is non-standard, and pointed out that no other similar articles mention the subject's spouse so prominently. They have been edit-warring from the get-go, including after being given a warning, and have provided zero reasons for why the standard should be broken in this case. They are now blatantly lying about having added the content in the first place. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please don;t accuse me of "blatant lying" I take that as an attack. The truth is that he edit was in article since February 2017 and unchallenged for 8 months. Iver came to Misplaced Pages a few weeks ago and felt they might delete it. I disagreed and reverted once. Asked them to instead take it to the 'talk page' and we could discuss it in a civil way if they so please. They didn't and instead kept reverting and tried edit warring their preferred version into the article without talking about it on the talk page first to get consensus for their desired edit That's about all their is to it. I have not reverted again but it seems they have again reverted 3 times in 10 hours to try and game the system. They crossed the 3 revert line in doing so. The lead is a summary of the main points in the article itself Ivar, that's the way leads work.Brownlife (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, you don't seem to understand that the onus is on *you* to gain consensus for *your* addition of content. You don't get to add whatever you want into articles and then wildly revert anyone who challenges it. Asking you to follow process isn't "gaming the system". You've now admitted that you were the one that made the first edit, whereas *twice* before you said "It was already in the article". If that's not blatantly lying, I don't know what is. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Brownlife is now edit-warring on a second page. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: User:Brownlife and User:Ivar the Boneful are both warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked, unless they have got a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
198.161.86.10 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Slavery in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.161.86.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Reported IP
- a second IP, from the same geolocation, restored the first IP's edit shortly after it was undone
- The second IP then extended the edit
- First IP restored the gist of the combined edits
- First IP
- First IP
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Oshwah~ 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Meters reported by User:198.161.86.10 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Slavery in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:10, 20 October 2017 Meters (talk | contribs) . . (30,670 bytes) (-243) . . (Undid revision 806242694 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) take it to talk or leave it alone) (undo)
- 17:41, 20 October 2017 Meters (talk | contribs) . . (30,670 bytes) (-243) . . (Undid revision 806238720 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) Read the lede. We are clearly discussing the territory that now forms Canada, not slavery in Canada after Confederation.) (undo)
- 23:21, 17 October 2017 Meters (talk | contribs) . . (30,670 bytes) (-359) . . (undo, no it had nothing to do with what the region was called at the time) (undo)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slavery_in_Canada&action=history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The fact of the matter is Meters has a long history of bullying and edit warring with multiple users, including using alt accounts. Further my edit to the page was only to add the fact Canada didn't exist until July 1, 1867, I didn't alter/add/delete anything else. This is important because it adds clarification to a narrative clearly meant to be divisive and negative. For instance it was stated slavery in Canada is not talked about but the way it's worded is clearly meant to invoke an air of conspiracy and/or denial. By pointing out Canada was formed on July 1, 1867 it clarifies why it's not talked about - Canada as a country existed after slavery was officially abolished. If one wishes to discuss the history of Canada then one must include important dates. To state slavery existed in the country of Canada, rather than the colonies which would later form Canada, then one must take into consideration the date Canada was formed. While it may be inconvenient for political purposes it doesn't change historical fact. If this really was a discussion on slavery in the territory that would become Canada then why wasn't it written as such? Meters himself doesn't dispute what I've written, as shown in the above examples, yet he claims it's irrelevant. Is it? Claiming a country actively participated in slavery when it didn't even exist seems a highly relevant detail doesn't it? That logic states when Ukraine broke from the old USSR any practices that happened before and after that date of separation doesn't matter when in fact it does. My intention wasn't to cause any vandalism, as Meyers' is, it's merely to add information and clarification that was neglected and is much needed for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.86.10 (talk • contribs) 19:14, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
- See the previous report. Can someone deal with this tit-for-tat report? The IP has accused me of "bullying and harrassment" in the original header, and socking and vandalism in the above comment. He or she didn't inform me of this report, got my name wrong in the original posting, didn't give me an edit warring warning (the supposed link to the warning is nothing but the history of the page), didn't respond to my comment about the edit content on his or her talk page, ignored the pointers to WP:BRD and WP:EW on the user's talk page, and didn't respond to my opening of the issue on the article's talk page. I left his final revert in place and opened the previous edit warring report. The user has now been blocked for edit warring and an unblock request has been denied. The edit in question was undone by an uninvolved editor (User:Ponyo). Meters (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- The IP kept restoring unsourced commentary to the article. Any sentence that starts off with "It needs to be told however" does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to discuss the validity of the second part of the edit on the article's talk page if anyone wants to support the claim that the reason slavery was not mentioned in the three acts of the 1700s was because Canada didn't exist until 1867. Meters (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- The IP kept restoring unsourced commentary to the article. Any sentence that starts off with "It needs to be told however" does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Filer blocked by User:Oshwah per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:94.246.150.68 reported by User:Atsme (Result: Withdrawn)
- User being reported: 94.246.150.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Page: Merlin (poem) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I WISH TO WITHDRAW THIS 3RR, PLEASE? I believe the IP has good intentions, but may simply be unaware of protocol, and if I can help familiarize them, I would prefer to do that instead. Thank you - 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Tried to explain and received the following response which appears that user doesn't understand vandalism or that we use TP to discuss.
FYI - this page was in the WP:NPR queue because it was initially a redirect. IP's reverts deleted categories, rearranged order of paragraphs and introduced some minor copy edit errors. 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It was accidental vandalisms by the reverters. The categories removed were for article Merlin, which I replaced them with categories for, you know, the poem Merlin, which is a completely different thing (a work and not a character). (Do I even have to explain the things that should be just obvious?) Btw I finished with my "some minor copy edit errors", which is a funny way to say "expanding the article more than twice in size and adding 11 references to replace the original 1 reference". And also to expalin more things: the original article was just a copy-pasted portion of the article about the character Merlin (from Merlin#Later versions of the legend - ), and about third of it was also about the continuation Prose Merlin and not the original poem or its prose version. It would be really nice if the reverters just watched more closely what they revert. Or asked if in doubt. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
And for the "4th" - the removed tag "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.", as I said in my edit (it wasn't a revert): it was not "references" in the external links (it's links to the English prose text, which I added too). Also then I added 7 more actual references (as inline citations aka "minor copy edit errors" apparently) soon later, and before this report. Seriously please just watch what you revert, and also what you report. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and also one more still thing still: I actually requested this article to be created in first place: --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: WIthdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: )
Page: Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HappyWaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: HappyWaldo is attempting to enforce addition of with a non-consensus edit by Hrt953. I have reverted this edit twice, and now find an IP 203.59.50.173 supporting the same position. Jim1138 has advised me of engaging in edit warring but I have only reverted this twice. There is no known consensus with this edit revert at all. Evidence does suggests from the discussion here that HappyWaldo is escalating the conflict by WP:OWN as clearly shown here.
I suspected that 203.59.50.173 maybe a yet unproven sock of HappyWaldo to avoid WP:3RR sanction, and it clearly looks quite suspicious.
- The IP anon is someone else (not sure who). I'd rather they contribute to the discussion I started and wait for a consensus to be reached before reverting. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. You get this warning from Jim1138 and now its: "I'd rather they contribute to the discussion I started and wait for a consensus to be reached before reverting.", when Hrt953 originally introduced it. Your reply was this: "...if this belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page)". Is this really evidence of consensus? Seriously, does WP:BRD mean anything? Your history of WP:OWN is now self-evident. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I started the discussion over at the Australian rules talk page almost an hour before receiving the warning from Jim1138. Check the times. I strongly believe my revert of Hrt953 falls under WP:COMMON and does not warrant a consensus. No content has actually been lost, because the same editor copied that same section to the AFL page, where it logically belongs. I started the discussion simply to get you off my back. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. You get this warning from Jim1138 and now its: "I'd rather they contribute to the discussion I started and wait for a consensus to be reached before reverting.", when Hrt953 originally introduced it. Your reply was this: "...if this belongs anywhere, it's the AFL page)". Is this really evidence of consensus? Seriously, does WP:BRD mean anything? Your history of WP:OWN is now self-evident. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Atmnn reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: )
- Page
- Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Atmnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC) "Are you insane cpt haddok"
- 13:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) to 19:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- 09:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Tirupati Balaji was a Jain temple */ r"
- Comments:
3RR warning given now. But he's been blocked twice for the same behaviour and continues to repeatedly push poorly sourced Jain-POV nonsense into multiple articles. Multiple editors have tried to reason with him on his talk page as well as the talk page of the article. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
His latest missive.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: )
Page: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chernobog95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , warned for related reverts and first here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and further discussion on user talkpage. The word "lie" shows up more than I like to see.
Comments:
Slow edit-warring to insert a specific quote, along with accusations of bad faith when confronted. Something odd is also going on with Lescandanave (talk · contribs) who was previously edit-warring over the same thing, initial edit and two reverts on 10/17. There has been a tendency to revert on other NK-related topics, but as the basis for my concern proved to be mostly incorrect, I have not pursued those. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)