→User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Amaury (Result: ): Reply to Swarm and further comments |
|||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
*Note to admins: I don't participate in any discussions involving the above user. Please direct any correspondence to my talk page from this point. Thank you. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
*Note to admins: I don't participate in any discussions involving the above user. Please direct any correspondence to my talk page from this point. Thank you. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
*Joe would seem to be on thin ice in terms of edit warring, and he does appear to still have a 1RR restriction in effect, but even with those points given as an aggravating circumstance, in the interest of simple fairness, I find it difficult to harshly sanction him in this situation, in which he was making correct edits in accordance with an unequivocal MOS guideline. I know we hold that "being right" in an edit war isn't an excuse, and I know that Joe is subject to severe sanctions if edit warring issues continue. But, given that he was simply enforcing MOS compliance in this case, and those reverting him were doing so with absolutely no good reason beyond MOS ignorance, and that he has agreed to abide by a 1RR restriction going forward, I'm inclined to let this slide with no action. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:Green">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">'''{talk}'''</span>]] 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC) |
*Joe would seem to be on thin ice in terms of edit warring, and he does appear to still have a 1RR restriction in effect, but even with those points given as an aggravating circumstance, in the interest of simple fairness, I find it difficult to harshly sanction him in this situation, in which he was making correct edits in accordance with an unequivocal MOS guideline. I know we hold that "being right" in an edit war isn't an excuse, and I know that Joe is subject to severe sanctions if edit warring issues continue. But, given that he was simply enforcing MOS compliance in this case, and those reverting him were doing so with absolutely no good reason beyond MOS ignorance, and that he has agreed to abide by a 1RR restriction going forward, I'm inclined to let this slide with no action. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:Green">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">'''{talk}'''</span>]] 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: {{re|Swarm}} Remember, though, that all MOS pages are ''guidelines''. As I quoted on the talk page of the article in question, they are suggested best practices to follow, but they aren't policies or top-down rules that must be absolutely followed and common sense should be applied as there are exceptions. Right or wrong aside, this is still a violation of 1RR–in fact, they even violated the regular 3RR. This isn't obvious vandalism, which is why both myself and GP decided to just leave it alone, but even after another user stepped in, they couldn't accept that consensus was against them. |
|||
:: Now, Swarm, {{U|EdJohnston}}, if the edit warring isn't bad enough, their [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]], both of which are policies, violations are even worse. As I mentioned above, they reverted my edit warring warning and called me a troll, which could fall under a personal attack as well, in addition to the baseless accusations of me and the others being meatpuppets. They are being uncivil and making personal attacks over at the article talk page: [[Talk:Big Time Rush#Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns]]. {{U|IJBall}} left them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joefromrandb&diff=prev&oldid=889217185 warning] for that, but Joe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joefromrandb&diff=next&oldid=889217185 reverted] him and called it vandalism. I mean, it's all pretty bad. |
|||
:: For reference, {{U|Purplebackpack89}} has opened concerns at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Joefromrandb]]. [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User talk:Amaury|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Fcbjuvenil]] and [[User:Walter Görlitz]] reported by [[User:Matthew hk]] (Result: Blocked 36 hours.) == |
== [[User:Fcbjuvenil]] and [[User:Walter Görlitz]] reported by [[User:Matthew hk]] (Result: Blocked 36 hours.) == |
Revision as of 15:23, 24 March 2019
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:183.90.36.169 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Edzard Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 183.90.36.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Early career */Wordy. Short and simple."
- 08:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Fact"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) to 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Controversy */Common subheading name of Wikipedia"
- 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Editorializing"
- 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable Committee member posts */More precise and specific"
- 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614410 by KH-1 (talk) Which wiki policy? Your own? Revert to good in good faith."
- 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888614018 by KH-1 (talk) what reasons?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (cam) (TW)"
- 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Edzard Ernst. (TW)"
- 08:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* March 2019 */ note about talk page"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"
- Comments:
The IP is refusing to engage in discussion, appears to be making POV (and largely ungrammatical) edits, and is way beyond 3RR. I've reverted three times on this page already, so will not go further, but this disruption should be stopped. GirthSummit (blether) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected three months due to IP-hopping edit warrior who doesn't use the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Thomasrussell reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Warned)
- Page
- John Alite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Thomasrussell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889003608 by Jebcubed (talk)"
- 19:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889003143 by Jebcubed (talk)"
- 19:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889002793 by Jebcubed (talk)"
- 19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "user keeps editing with agenda, may be Alite or someone hired for Alite. The changes are unsubstantiated, non referenced except by Alite himself. User is using Wikipedia as PR for Alite."
- Consecutive edits made from 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC) to 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888991051 by Resnjari (talk) Not sure why his Albanian heritage has to do with you wiping out everything. Please dont do that again."
- 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Thomasrussell (talk) to last revision by Resnjari (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User refuses to discuss on article talk page, and has violated 3RR. War was between him and User Resnjari, I attempted to push him to the talk page, but he didn't. Jeb3Talk at me here 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I dont know how to use the talk page, I've tried. The comments being amended are non referenced or only referenced by the subject himself. Everything I've listed is substantiated and referenved by journalist not Alite himself. Again Im not opposed to talking on the talk page, I just cant figure out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also asked the editor to use the talkpage in my second revert [1]. I did not touch the page thereafter and waited for the editor to respond in the talkpage. Instead as @Jebcubed shows above with the examples of diffs, @Thomasrussell continued edit warring.Resnjari (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Thomasrussell, you are risking a block for edit warring. You might avoid this if you will agree to stop changing this article until agreement is reached on Talk:John Alite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston Thank you for explaining the talk page; Ill follow that moving forward. I have to ask, why is that the content that's being questions is not a factor and I'm the one being threatened with banning? I can make a strong argument that what I'm submitting is far more accurate and substantiated. If I can't make changes to what I know to be truthful vs not and can back it up with references, then what exactly should I be doing to avoid a ban- should I not make the corrections? or is there an official process I should follow to submit changes and hope that they get published? Either way I'll use the talk page moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Result: User:Thomasrussell is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the talk page. While I haven't studied the article in detail, three things are evident. First. the article is a WP:BLP, second, http://johnalitefacts.com appears self-published and doesn't qualify as a WP:Reliable source for Wikipedia, and third, Thomasrussell has reverted seven times, which is more than anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:69.119.170.192 reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Blocked for a week)
- Page
- Roman Dmowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 69.119.170.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889014325 by Jebcubed (talk) Just how many accounts are you going to keep on hopping? You have already been warned twice."
- 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889013784 by Icewhiz (talk) Restoring good faith edit. You don't decide what the consensus is."
- 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889011739 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop edit warring, you have already been warned once on your talk page."
- 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889011327 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop account hopping. Restoring general consensue per WP:BD"
- 20:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889010852 by Icewhiz (talk) How is it relevant and what is clearly cited? The source is the definition of antisemitism which has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Please take your concerns to the talk page rather than blatantly edit warring."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has not built consensus, and continues to revert anyways Jeb3Talk at me here 21:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was about to report them as well. There is a discussion in the TP - the IP vs. everyone else - the IP is trying to remove the subject's (dead, not BLP) well documented antisemitism that is STABLE in the article. Note thee is long term edit warring here by IPs, and this particular IP has been blocked recently for block evasion. I gave the IP a 3RR warning here (when they were at 3 or 4 reverts) - they responded by warning me (I reverted them twice + engaged on the talk oage). The IP is currently at 6 reverts, and is claiming other users are vandals or socks. Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you lying? It is YOU who is removing information and attempting to replace it with a dead source, a source that links to nowhere and has absolutely nothing to do with the article being talked about in the first place. The source that that was removed was a dead link linking to a book about the definition of antisemitism. The topic is of Roman Dmowski, not the definition of antisemitism. You keep reverting to vandalized edits and your own point of view. It is not "IP" vs. "everyone else". Everyone else does not agree with your viewpoint, only you, Jebcubed, and TU-nor do. The majority of the users, as evident by the edit history were against your edit which removed content. Also, you must have me confused for someone else, I have never been blocked by anyone. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note IP is currently at 3RR on this page - AN/EW - blanking out this report.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jebcubed is participating in the exact same thing he is accusing me of doing. Also, Icewhiz is engaging in similar matter. Check out the history of the page, the "edit war" started when Jeb reverted the edit back to a vandalized edit (here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Dmowski&oldid=888706662). I reverted it back to it's originality. He deliberately removed information regarding Pilsudksi's vision of Prometheism, restored a dead source that was removed by a previous user, and then Icewhiz came in and began reverting back to the edits Jeb made, leading to speculation that they might be working together. They then accuse me of edit warring, despite the fact it is them who keep on restoring the vandalized edit that removed information in the first place. Also, Jeb is at 3RR, yet Icewhiz has the audacity to only accuse me when it was him who edit warred in the first place. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note diff alleging I am @TU-nor: "account hopping". Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- No allegations, just speculation. You were awfully quick to revert back to his edit after all and frequently like to restore edits regarding his point-of-view... -69.119.170.192 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note diff alleging I am @TU-nor: "account hopping". Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jebcubed is participating in the exact same thing he is accusing me of doing. Also, Icewhiz is engaging in similar matter. Check out the history of the page, the "edit war" started when Jeb reverted the edit back to a vandalized edit (here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Dmowski&oldid=888706662). I reverted it back to it's originality. He deliberately removed information regarding Pilsudksi's vision of Prometheism, restored a dead source that was removed by a previous user, and then Icewhiz came in and began reverting back to the edits Jeb made, leading to speculation that they might be working together. They then accuse me of edit warring, despite the fact it is them who keep on restoring the vandalized edit that removed information in the first place. Also, Jeb is at 3RR, yet Icewhiz has the audacity to only accuse me when it was him who edit warred in the first place. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week. The 69.x IP is pretty obviously the same as the 174.x IP that previously edited the article. Any editor may revert the latest edit without being accused of 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Debi Prasad Misra reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Help:IPA/Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Debi Prasad Misra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"
- 03:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC) ""
- 18:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC) to 11:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- 09:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Key */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Help:IPA/Sanskrit."
- 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Help:IPA/Sanskrit */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user has been warring over the page's content for the past week without any attempt to participate in the existing discussion or even explain their intention through edit-summaries. And that is not the only page they have been edit-warring at (another target). See also the numerous warnings/suggestions on the user's talkpage, which they have not responded to. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:111.220.164.171 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- User talk:CaradhrasAiguo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 111.220.164.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has been blocked for edit warring in the near-past, and has admitted to being the same muttering idiot as that Melbourne IP. Given this multi-day violation of WP:TPG (even reverting an archival bot) and the previous violation, I recommend a range-block of both their New South Wales and Victoria addresses for no less than 8 months. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a muttering idiot, intentional policy violator and I'll never be in NSW. Also, IPs change at least a few times in 8 months and I've never been assigned to an IP then on a block or already off an even earlier one so why are you thinking of a rangebock for 8 months?. Besides, you need diffs in a report at this venues. 111.220.164.171 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- This report is actually malformed, but the disruption by the IP is fairly obvious, so I've blocked the IP for one week. The unspecified long-term range blocks are not remotely warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Amaury (Result: )
- Page
- Big Time Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "it's not an independent clause, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll leave it to others to fix; meanwhile fixing mid-sentence capitalization of definite articles beginning a band's name"
- Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2011–12: Elevate and film */ lc"
- 18:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2013–14: 24/Seven */ lc"
- 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
- 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ nowhere does any of that MoS claptrap say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon"
- Consecutive edits made from 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "no, a dependent clause following a colon is lowercase"
- 10:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
- 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
- 05:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ lc"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Big Time Rush (band). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 18:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns */ new section"
- Comments:
Note that they reverted my edit warring warning, calling me a troll. They clearly have WP:CIR issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- User is an obvious meatpuppet (admits as much on his user page), and editing in clear violation of long-standing convention. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Point out where I admit this; otherwise, you are violating WP:NPA. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You call GP your "colleague". What other reason could you have for repeatedly editing the page in clear violation of MOS:THEMUSIC? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It's not surprising in the least that there are people who work together or share interests in the same things. Unless you have concrete proof that there's meatpuppetry, I suggest strike your accusations, especially since you're not right here. On top of your disruptive editing and violation of 3RR and refusal to follow WP:BRD, with the addition of personal attacks, that is more than enough grounds for a block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You call GP your "colleague". What other reason could you have for repeatedly editing the page in clear violation of MOS:THEMUSIC? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Point out where I admit this; otherwise, you are violating WP:NPA. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I made a request at WP:RPP to temporarily fully-protect this article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Wasn't Joefromrandb blocked for an extended time at one point, with the understanding that, if he kept edit-warring, he'd be indeffed? pbp 19:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: I don't have any personal knowledge of previous incidences, but taking a quick look, it seems like it, as their last block wasn't just a block, it was an arbitration block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others#One-revert restriction perhaps? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- An admin could issue a one-month initial block under the arb case if they agree that Joefromrandb violated their 1RR restriction. If, on the other hand, an admin believes that an indef block is a better choice, they can open a request for one at WP:ARCA. The dispute above is about WP:MOS and the styling of words, so there is no issue of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others#One-revert restriction perhaps? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note to admins: I don't participate in any discussions involving the above user. Please direct any correspondence to my talk page from this point. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Joe would seem to be on thin ice in terms of edit warring, and he does appear to still have a 1RR restriction in effect, but even with those points given as an aggravating circumstance, in the interest of simple fairness, I find it difficult to harshly sanction him in this situation, in which he was making correct edits in accordance with an unequivocal MOS guideline. I know we hold that "being right" in an edit war isn't an excuse, and I know that Joe is subject to severe sanctions if edit warring issues continue. But, given that he was simply enforcing MOS compliance in this case, and those reverting him were doing so with absolutely no good reason beyond MOS ignorance, and that he has agreed to abide by a 1RR restriction going forward, I'm inclined to let this slide with no action. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Remember, though, that all MOS pages are guidelines. As I quoted on the talk page of the article in question, they are suggested best practices to follow, but they aren't policies or top-down rules that must be absolutely followed and common sense should be applied as there are exceptions. Right or wrong aside, this is still a violation of 1RR–in fact, they even violated the regular 3RR. This isn't obvious vandalism, which is why both myself and GP decided to just leave it alone, but even after another user stepped in, they couldn't accept that consensus was against them.
- Now, Swarm, EdJohnston, if the edit warring isn't bad enough, their WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, both of which are policies, violations are even worse. As I mentioned above, they reverted my edit warring warning and called me a troll, which could fall under a personal attack as well, in addition to the baseless accusations of me and the others being meatpuppets. They are being uncivil and making personal attacks over at the article talk page: Talk:Big Time Rush#Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns. IJBall left them a warning for that, but Joe reverted him and called it vandalism. I mean, it's all pretty bad.
- For reference, Purplebackpack89 has opened concerns at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Joefromrandb. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Fcbjuvenil and User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Matthew hk (Result: Blocked 36 hours.)
Page: Marc-André ter Stegen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- For today (23/24 March depends on local time) edit war : Special:Diff/888820800
- for bigger picture (1 March) Special:Diff/885552316
- For even bigger picture, the wording was existed in year 2014 and Walter did not against it Special:Diff/621517408, Special:Diff/629467180
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Walter's revert
- Special:Diff/889122867
- Special:Diff/889170571
- Special:Diff/889171464
Fcbjuvenil's revert (after the today initial re-insert)
- Special:Diff/889169676
- Special:Diff/889171157
- Special:Diff/889173695
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Special:Diff/889171529 (warning to Fcbjuvenil)
- Special:Diff/889173912 (warning to Walter)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- None of them attempted to. A Rfc was opened by me at Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen#RfC on lede
Comments:
Teleported from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quick 1 week block request on edit war for User:Fcbjuvenil and User:Walter Görlitz and protect the article Marc-André ter Stegen
Act of against the world by Walter, claiming no consensus. However, by page history record, in 2014, the wording "Spanish club" in the lede already existed and he did not against it, also no documentation of his "change him mind" or the real consensus in Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen. It was somehow discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (see the archived thread), but at the article, the wording was re-inserted by two admins Mattythewhite and Enigmaman, with Walter and a mystery IP that seem a VPN (that may be joejapping Walter) to keep on removing the "Spanish club" wording. Matthew hk (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you report that IP and me to SPI? It was determined not to traceable. I already stated there that it was not me. Can you drop that stick now?
- As for the edit war. I would be happy if Fcbjuvenil would discuss this. He did not do so on his talk page, at the project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_123#Marc-André_ter_Stegen, or in this recent edit.
- As I stated at the ANI you opened about this, the only reason to avoid "Spanish" in that article is that it is a red flag for Barcelona fans who happen to be strong Catalan separatists. Fcbjuvenil is also at 4 reverts now as the "initial re-insert" is revertig the work of another editor. I would rather have a project- or community-level consensus, but that's doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Thanks for opening the RfC at the article, but that may be premature. If the decision is to leave it as "Spanish", then I'm fine to leave it an I will not be involved with anons from getting into an edit war over it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. This is an above-average block due to the larger, contentious, POV-pushing issue of applying the label "Spanish" to nationalist/separatist regions of Spain. This is something that should be forced unless there is a clear local consensus or community-level decision. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 reported by User:97.118.143.21 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [2]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- All of the content in question is sourced by multiple reliable sources and is being continually removed. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have begun to suspect our interlocutor is some kind of troll. He alternately restores and removes the content with no coherent rationale. This edit summary is rather rich, as well. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I did not add the content in question. There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is removed. You can’t remove sourced content because you disagree with it. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I have already informed you, reverting someone else's deletion is considered "adding the content". You added it twice: here and here. Now please grow up, and stand by your edits, and decide whether you want it added or deleted (because you have done both) and you appear to be nothing but a garden-variety troll, who makes frivolous reports of editors like me who act in good faith and have done nothing wrong. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Before removing sourced content you need to bring your concerns to the talk page first. Please stop removing sourced content. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Please stop edit warring here. If you want to discuss the matter of the article, please go to Talk:Astroturfing. So far no discuss there. Matthew hk (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Point of order here: My accuser failed to present diffs. I have made exactly one edit to the article in question, while he has posted two links which are not diffs of any edits I have made. I hereby move to close this case, and dismiss the charge, due to lack of evidence and frivolous intent. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 keeps removing my comments from talk pages. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, no one edited in Talk:Astroturfing, so which talk page? Per WP:OWNTALK they can blanking user talk.
- For diff it seem logout edits instead:
- First edit, faction A: Special:Diff/889175492 by 97.118.143.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- First revert by faction B: Special:Diff/889175581 by Vwilding (talk · contribs)
- first revert, faction A: Special:Diff/889178530 by Barkeep49 (talk · contribs)
- accidental self-shooting or suddenly switch side to faction B? Special:Diff/889181279 by 97.118.143.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- second revert, faction A: Special:Diff/889188379 by 2600:8800:1880:fc:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- some self-revert Special:Diff/889189112 Special:Diff/889190032 by 97.118.143.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Matthew hk (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As a note, when I reverted I did so based on a comment at Talk:Jexodus. I checked the talk page of Astroturfing, saw no discussion there (or DS notices for that matter), and removed the information. I had not looked at the edit history before doing so. I obviously have also not edited since. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Since SPI prevent to request checkuser for ip, it never able to prove the owner of the ip, except behavioural evidence, and one edit is not enough.
- And since the ip 97.118.143.21 self shooting twice, it seem enough evidence to either boomerang this edit war filing to himself (since 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 only edited once) or just close it. Matthew hk (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Merphee reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merphee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Comments:
This is not the first time Merphee has broken 3RR on this page. I file a separate report a while ago, which got the page protected for 12 hours. I and other editors have made substantial effort to reach any sort of middleground with Merphee. I do not believe that they are interested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Merphee seems to have broken 3RR more than once now, with the justification that two people undoing his reverts is a "tag team" and a "technical" violation of WP:3RR. This makes it all the more strange why they make four reverts in a short amount of time, not merely a technicality of a violation, and showing that they have been very aware, at least on two occasions, of policy regarding this. Merphee has "apologised" for this before, the sincerity of which has been doubted from their refusal to undo their revert, and I think this instance shows they have no intention of stopping. However, what concerns me is being accused of forming part of a "tag team" or some other kind of conspiracy whenever I happen to agree with someone or make edits that are similar or complementary to someone else's. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:207.189.30.213 and User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:CaptainEek (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page: Losin' It (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: FilmandTVFan28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 207.189.30.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to IP given by F&TVfan. F&TVFan28 has not been warned on their talk page, but they did post a EW template on the IP's page so they are certainly aware of the concept of an edit war.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not edited the page in question. I came across this edit war while huggling. It appears that the involved users have not engaged in conversation.
Comments:
Both users engaged in a disruptive back and forth over content. The IP looked to be honestly trying to improve the article, and was using edit summaries, so I don't believe the IP was vandalizing. Thus I think both users were at fault for edit warring. Note that the IP was warned on their talk page about Edit warring, by FilmandTVfan28 -- who then edit warred themself! I also note that Filmandtvfan28 then requested page protection for the page in an apparent effort to win the edit war. The IP chimed in at the RPP discussion [19], contesting the page protection. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Kleuske reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: )
- Page
- Eric Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Ph. D. in Maths, publications on the subject. Hence he qualifies as a mathematician. Please seek consensus on the TP. Thanks. Undid revision 889107594 by Dfsfscasdq (talk)"
- 08:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 90.241.121.154 (talk) to last version by Kleuske"
- 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Per WP:V, WP:BLP. Source does not support claim. See TP."
- 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "I bet he never wrote a paper on Tibetan funeral ceremonies, either. Nor did he win the Tour de France, the Boston Marathon of the Iron Man. The fact that he has never written a paper (i.e. scientific publication) on the subjects is irrelevant."
- 9:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Source?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Seems clear-cut. 4 reverts within 24 hours, and another revert the day after. Both editors discussed on talk, but that is not an excuse for edit warring AFAIK. If she isn't blocked, full page protection will be necessary. The other party in this dispute, new editor Dfsfscasdq, has also been edit warring (though did not break 3RR), but I only gave them a warning. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)