Misplaced Pages

If this is me who does not understand what revert is, I am ready to apologize, however all edits by JFG above clearly look to me as undoing work by other contributors that therefore reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. I'm not seeing multiple reverts. It's difficult to even tell the one, to be honest. There just isn't enough evidentiary basis to connect the removals as reverts (i.e. to pertinent additions). El_C 21:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Are you saying you don't consider this a clear instance of a "revert"? SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not. It has to be tied to a concrete addition. There is a dialectical relationship —a connection between— adding and removing in a revert. But it might fall under the no removal without consensus provision that is no longer being enforced. El_C 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:73.81.144.49 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Page protected)

Page

The Pinkprint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) to 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "No, that wasn't me. And it still hasn't been proven that I'm a sock, so guess what? Now you're in an edit war. Congratulations."
   2. 22:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Singles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is IP hopping 73.81.147.192 and 73.81.156.42 and is suspected of being the same guy from last night - 2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:61 and 156.12.250.236 Kellymoat (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected Blocked NeilN 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Rossonthejob reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Diamonds (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768464966 by Kellymoat (talk) Seeing as pop is sourced... This is pointless Ms. Moat"
2. 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768457245 by Kellymoat (talk) Please see #Composition and lyrical interpretation"
3. 22:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768443745 by Kellymoat (talk) Pop is sourced"
4. 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768417818 by 79.68.241.203 (talk) vandalism only account"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references. (TW)"
2. 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

User has violated 3rr with unsourced genre changes without consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Warned @Kellymoat and Rossonthejob: Start using article talk pages or you'll both be blocked. NeilN 23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Hellboy42 reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hellboy42 (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: User brought to my talk page and was told several times to stop.

Comments:
User continues to remove valid sources from the article and continues to revert users who add them back. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)}}

It appears that the user hasn't edited the article since being given a 3RR warning on his user talk page. I'd consider holding off until the user does so again, and in spite of being notified of the 3RR policy. ~Oshwah~ 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well here it is he did it again after warning Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 03:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, guy wanted proof that it was El Patron not De Patron. How is a pic off of Facebook more reliable than Twitter? Because this is literally the link he is using in the reference https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17103611_1591420727553081_3331689445193386101_n.jpg?oh=fffe26495ae4c551561fdb13560efe78&oe=5968C10A Hellboy42 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Has no bearing on anything you violated 3rr, you've reverted several users 8+ times in the last 2hrs. I told you on my talk to stop, issued you a warning, and you reverted a user on the article again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to know changing a clearly wrong citation is frowned upon. Even if there is visual proof. Hellboy42 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You violated 3rr, were warned, then reverted the article again. What part of that do you not understand? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 03:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~Oshwah~ 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (Revision as of 05:21, March 1, 2017)
2. (Revision as of 08:52, March 1, 2017)
3. (Revision as of 12:45, March 1, 2017)
4. (Revision as of 13:20, March 3, 2017)
5. (Revision as of 17:37, March 3, 2017)
6. (Revision as of 04:04, March 4, 2017)
7. (Revision as of 18:16, March 4, 2017)
8. (Revision as of 18:20, March 4, 2017)
9. (Latest revision as of 18:28, March 4, 2017)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Crown (TV series)#Kennedy description

Comments:

The editor, while a respected member of the Television WikiProject, refuses to allow the version of consensus to stand, and has therefore long-term edit-warred over the past several days, violating 3RR in the process. A discussion was started, upon which the editor decided that consensus stood after a day, which it did not, and continues to force her edits upon the page, reverting even the clearest of consensus' to not include character descriptions at all. Alex|The|Whovian 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:, @Softlavender: Rusted AutoParts 08:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been an aggravating experience. The recent three reverts come off as out of spite more than trying to force her view. She's shown no interest in productively discussing the issue as after only a day unilaterally declared the discussion over. I first noticed the issue after Favre and Alex undid her edit, citing since the season will cover a period of time before Kennedy's presidency, there was a possibility they could appear during that time. Drmargi outright refused this and thus the war started. She is more than likely in the right, but once three editors dispute an edit, it should be discussed, NOT forced back in. I had my problems with not discussing in my past, but with the new year I resolved to be more level headed as it wields a more productive dialogue. And Drmargi, being an editor here for 11 years should know this. Rusted AutoParts 08:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 10:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, El C, and Drmargi: I'm going to post this here, so that no-one can revert my contributions. 1) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's accusation of WP:GRAVEDANCING is entirely inaccurate and exceptionally uncivil. "A history of disputes with the blockee.": Incorrect, I've had massive respect for DM as a contributing member of the Television WikiProject; "An established pattern of deliberate wikistalking of the blockee." Never wikistalked her; "A repeated stated desire to see the user in question blocked, beyond the normal course of voting in a block/ban discussion." I made this report out of necessary to stop her disruptive editing, not because I wanted to. Now that you've read some sense, you will hopefully revert your accusations. 2) Nine reverts is unacceptable, and cannot just be "accepted" because the page is protected. This is where editors get the idea that their edit-warring and personal attacks towards other editors is acceptable, when they're just let off, and they know that they can do it again. Alex|The|Whovian 11:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It did seem to me like you were beating her while she was down. El_C 11:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I'm not one who sinks that low. I wanted her to realize her actions and why they were unacceptable, and not to beat her down as a "victory". I did have respect for her as a fellow WPTV member. But she shows no remorse for her actions, and, given the situation propose on her talk page, will more than likely know that she can do it again without repercussions. Alex|The|Whovian 11:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But I hope you can see how it can be construed otherwise. As for remorse (and being cognizant of repercussions), I am still hopeful. El_C 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We'll see. Nice to be able to post without being reverted, though. Alex|The|Whovian 11:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: This post was not grave dancing, as you incorrectly assumed here, but attempting to bring to light the issue to you, so that you understood that it was not just an arbitrary ban on the editor, but it was put in place due to the unacceptable actions. While I understand that editors such as yourself like to take sides and display favouritism when your favourite editors are blocked, do read the rest of this discussion, while you're here. Alex|The|Whovian 12:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had already read this thread. Nothing to do with "taking sides" – simply showing support. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  12:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support for what? Nine reverts, grossly breaking the edit-warring policy? Do you too support edit-warring? This is a textbook example of taking sides and making false accusations. Read the discussion properly, and you might find that you'll be needing to revert your false accusation. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"accusations" Where? What? Please expand. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the first post of mine that initially pinged you, accusing me of grave dancing. Alex|The|Whovian 13:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That post was made by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.Not by me. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I said pinging you, not them. So, this, commented "and here!", wasn't you? Alex|The|Whovian 13:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an addendum added by me and which is clearly shown in Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's . — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. An addendum to add that one particular example to the accusation of grave dancing. Alex|The|Whovian 13:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no. To desist from posting here. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So, you mean to say that listed my edit as an addition to the accusation of grave-dancing, so that I might stop posting on your talk page? Alex|The|Whovian 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• El_C, I'm bothered by the possibility of DM being unblocked early considering she has a history of this type of behavior coupled with blatant personal attacks. Since I first encountered her a couple of years ago, I've seen her play the edit warring game more than once, however, it's that coupled with a complete WP:IDLI/WP:WIN/WP:POINT attitude and behavior, name-calling/personal attacks, and strong-arm bulling tactics as an attempt to wear editors she sees as opponents down that has characterized this whole dramatic ordeal (did you look at her edit summaries, article talk page comments, and how many days she's been playing this edit warring game at a slow pace?). This goes beyond simple edit warring, there's a pattern and behavior that goes hand-in-hand here. Lift the block sooner than the original 72 hours and there will be a message sent that really can't be taken back: treat other editors and their opinions like crap, never really discuss, act like as much of a bully as you like, call others names and personally attack, say you'll stop edit warring, and your block will be lifted early anyway. That kind of message says: please continue at a later time, after you're no longer being watched for going over "1RR or 2RR". This is a long-standing problem with her. It's not going to go away if she thinks she can pull one over on admins because she says "Oops!" and has a fan club. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Koui² reported by User:Redrose64 (Result: Both blocked for 25 hours)

Page: Air (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koui² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Also reporting Iennes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for similar behaviour.

Previous version reverted to: 11:54, 27 February 2017, but this is essentially continuance of this series

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Koui² (prefers the word "Sometimes")
  1. 01:42, 16 February 2017
  2. 11:44, 17 February 2017
  3. 15:48, 17 February 2017
  4. 23:12, 17 February 2017
  5. 23:20, 17 February 2017 - WP:3RR breached at this point
  6. 23:34, 17 February 2017
  7. 23:37, 17 February 2017 - now six reverts in under 24 hours
  8. 11:54, 27 February 2017
  9. 13:28, 28 February 2017
  10. 09:10, 2 March 2017
  11. 23:08, 2 March 2017
  12. 08:41, 3 March 2017
  13. 21:28, 3 March 2017
  14. 02:37, 4 March 2017 - WP:3RR not technically breached, but there were four reverts in 27 hours 29 minutes, see WP:3RR "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."
• Iennes (prefers not to use the word "Sometimes")
  1. 23:46, 15 February 2017
  2. 23:58, 16 February 2017
  3. 15:04, 17 February 2017
  4. 20:18, 17 February 2017
  5. 23:16, 17 February 2017 - WP:3RR breached at this point (notwithstanding the erratic <ref></ref>)
  6. 23:32, 17 February 2017
  7. 23:37, 17 February 2017 - now six reverts in under 24 hours
  8. 17:19, 27 February 2017
  9. 21:27, 28 February 2017
  10. 19:08, 2 March 2017
  11. 00:43, 3 March 2017
  12. 13:33, 3 March 2017
  13. 22:01, 3 March 2017 - WP:3RR not technically breached, but there were four reverts in 26 hours 53 minutes, see WP:3RR "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."

I have gone right back to 23:46, 15 February 2017 (even though the dispute started somewhat earlier), listing many more than four reverts for each user, for reasons that should be apparent.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:02, 3 March 2017 (with a previous informal warning at 15:37, 3 March 2017) - this was Koui²; I also warned Iennes at 22:06, 3 March 2017 (previous informal warning at 15:37, 3 March 2017).

I have not personally tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, but Anne Delong (talk · contribs) has. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:50, 11 February 2017.

Comments:

I am prompted to file this report because Koui² made this edit less than five hours after being served a formal {{subst:uw-3rr}} warning. I could have placed a 24-hour block upon Koui² (not for 3RR violation but for continuing to WP:EW after a formal warning); but instead have decided to bring both Koui² and the other party to the dispute, i.e. Iennes, to WP:ANEW to gauge the opinion that both should be blocked, also that a longer block may be necessary. Both have been claiming the other's edits to be vandalism, even though a plain and simple dispute over wording is not considered vandalism.

This dispute has been going on for weeks, and WP:3RR was violated by both users on 17 February 2017, for which a block could have been imposed, but seems to have gone unnoticed. If it had ceased there, this would be a stale report; but the dispute is clearly ongoing, and apparently began somewhat earlier. Since 23:46, 15 February 2017, the only edits made in mainspace by these two editors have been to the article Air (band); and since that date, the only edit made to that page which did not involve the disputed phrase was this link addition by Koui². I first became aware of the problem soon after I put the page on my watchlist when making this edit to its talk page at 21:40, 27 February 2017. Hence I was not aware of the 17 February 2017 violation at the time.

I realise that behaviour on other Wikimedia projects should have no bearing on the matter, but in their edit summaries, they have both mentioned the French Misplaced Pages; it seems that both been warned (and at least one of them has been blocked) on French Misplaced Pages for similar behaviour, see fr:Discussion utilisateur:Koui²#Air (groupe) and fr:Discussion utilisateur:Iennes#Blocage 1 semaine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both users blocked. El_C 11:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kim kim kim reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: )

Page

Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kim kim kim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) to 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 13:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Even if the Korean named "tonhe", I do not care if it is only in Korea.

The Japanese calls the "Korea Strait" the "Tsugaru Straits", but only in Japan. Because we will keep things decided by IHO. Therefore, I do not admit to mention it together. If IHO..."

1. 1. 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) ") was added."
2. 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I have stated the name determined by IHO."
3. 12:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I have stated the name determined by IHO.

I understand that you have patriotism, but as soon KOREA will pick up the accompanying notes at IHO, please wait until then."

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC) to 04:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. 01:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Change the unique name to the official name of the international organization"
   2. 04:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "I had set a hyperlink to proper noun"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, ctrl-f "Sea of Japan" TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Aand this makes five. TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)