→User:85.182.81.162 reported by User:Mr. Guye (Result: ): blocked 48 hours (using responseHelper) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
:{{ping|GarnetAndBlack}} '''Both''' of you have violated [[WP:3RR]]. Seeing the article is about a rivalry, it seems reasonable that fan actions would potentially be part of the article. And your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry&diff=812255515&oldid=812255345 edit summary here] does you no credit. {{ping|Carolina kid}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry&diff=812190191&oldid=809272485 Your initial post] was not suitable for an article talk page which are meant to host discussions on how to improve articles. That means proposing a concrete change and providing reliable sources to show why the incident is notable. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 05:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
:{{ping|GarnetAndBlack}} '''Both''' of you have violated [[WP:3RR]]. Seeing the article is about a rivalry, it seems reasonable that fan actions would potentially be part of the article. And your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry&diff=812255515&oldid=812255345 edit summary here] does you no credit. {{ping|Carolina kid}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina_rivalry&diff=812190191&oldid=809272485 Your initial post] was not suitable for an article talk page which are meant to host discussions on how to improve articles. That means proposing a concrete change and providing reliable sources to show why the incident is notable. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 05:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:BlueandWhite2017]] reported by [[User:Koodbuur]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:BlueandWhite2017]] reported by [[User:Koodbuur]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Awdal}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|Awdal}} |
||
Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
persistent edit warring in violation of WP:3RR, despite attempts to advise editor to use the talk page section [[User:Koodbuur|Koodbuur]] ([[User talk:Koodbuur|talk]]) 00:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
persistent edit warring in violation of WP:3RR, despite attempts to advise editor to use the talk page section [[User:Koodbuur|Koodbuur]] ([[User talk:Koodbuur|talk]]) 00:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:85.182.81.162]] reported by [[User:Mr. Guye]] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) == |
== [[User:85.182.81.162]] reported by [[User:Mr. Guye]] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) == |
Revision as of 05:48, 27 November 2017
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:Gravuritas reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page: Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gravuritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
The editor's edit warring appears to be motivated by his dislike of academic economics. His talk page participation has consisted of WP:SOAPBOXing about that which amounts to the user claiming that they personally don't like economics as a discipline that gives them the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article. Some examples of talk page rants, combined with personal attacks on other editors include [8], [9], [10]. The user has a recent block for exactly the same behavior by User:Boing! said Zebedee.
Note also that the user has been warned, and then given a chance to self revert. Their response is not encouraging [11] - it pretty much indicates that the user has no intention of observing Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above is an unfair characterisation of what's happened. And the last edit listed above was not a revert. Gravuritas has expressed views on economic forecasting, but that is not relevant here. He has provided edit summary reasons and asked questions on the talk page that others have not attempted to address. He has not claimed "the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article" and has always justified removing or altering what is presented. Personal attacks... "phone a friend" and "naive belief" is the extent of it in the first example; "fetishistic worship" is the worst of the second example; and the third contains no personal attack at all. I've started a new "Pause and discuss" section on the talk page here, which is where this should be continued. No one has responded yet... EddieHugh (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- the last edit listed above was not a revert - this was most certainly a revert. Indeed this is one of the big issues under contention [12]. The very next edit was also a revert (though because these two are consecutive I'm only counting them as one - there are still three others). People HAVE addressed his questions, he's just engaging in a whole lotta WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with soapboxing and personal attacks: " SnSn’s fetishistic worship of academia ", "if he wishes to worship at the feet of some economist", etc. I should also mentioned that you yourself tiptoe'd right up to the 3RR line yourself. Volunteer Marek 02:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- In particular this was a revert of this. And yes, this is a non-minor change as the discussion on talk page evidences. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Two editors are making a series of edits which amount to POV pushing: basically that Brexit will be an economic disaster. That may or may not be the way things eventuate, but meantime they are trying to monopolise the page. To take an easy example, they want to present long-term economic prospects before short-term ones, (which is an unnatural order)- why? They are repeatedly smearing my views as a dislike of academic economists, when all I have said is that some extremely capable economists do not work in academia, and that academic economists, along with nearly all other economists, are rubbish at forecasting so they cannot be taken as experts in that specific subfield- economic forecasting. I am giving reasons and justifications for my edits, while with the exception of EddieHugh above, the other editors of this page are issue blanket dismissals or gnomic references to WP policies that they believe I am transgressing. Let’s take another example: whether ‘overwhelming’ can be used to describe the size of the majority of economists who believe Brexit will damage the UK economy. I opened a discussion about it on talk, and what I got was rhubarb in reply. If editors are not prepared to justify their edits, then I don’t see why they should complain if deleted or reverted.
- Gravuritas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of your position (and these are scant), they do not constitute a valid excuse for edit warring. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, I have not broken the 3RR rule, and I have only edited or reverted more than once if the editor has not engaged with the substantive argument that I have posted, in either the edit explanation or the talk page. I’ll let others be the judge of whether I have been edit warring. You, on the other hand, have accused me of breaking a whole alphabet of WP policies. Your assertions in the first two sentences in this section are a misrepresentation of my views, and your repetition of that misrepresentation can only be a wilful smear. Apologise.
- Meantime, another editor has requested that I refrain from abuse, and the example chosen was an economically illiterate article, that someone wished to quote in the Brexit article. I accept that my disbelief in him/ her wishing to use that article should not have been phrased as ‘swallow[ing] this garbage’. I apologise for the use of the epithet and I will try hard to avoid such terms in future.
- Gravuritas (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- This "economically illiterate article" happens to be written by four economists from top ranked institutions [13](LSE, U Warwick, U Nottingham, CEPR). You sort of can't get more "economically literate" than that. It sounds like you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of your position (and these are scant), they do not constitute a valid excuse for edit warring. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a bright-line 3RR violation by Gravuritas, but he is clearly edit warring to some degree. There's a bunch of talk-page discussions open, ideally they will resolve the issue in a civil manner and without any further edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's four diffs of reverts provided right up above. How can that NOT be a "bright-line 3RR violation". Note also that the edits immediately following or preceding the provided diffs were also reverts. Volunteer Marek 05:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours for personal attacks and POV-pushing. Thanks to Gravuritas for apologizing for 'swallowing garbage' but now we have 'wilful smear' so there is not much overall progress. The incensed tone of their comments suggests they will have trouble editing neutrally about Brexit. They were previously blocked for personal attacks in June. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see two obvious reverts around 2200, and a muddle of edits earlier which may only count as one revert. Regardless, his comments here are more than enough to justify the block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just as discussions start on the talk page.... There have been worse personal attacks & POV-pushing on the article and in its edit summaries by others. This sort of outcome makes me inclined to give up. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mind providing some actual evidence? --Calton | Talk 16:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I know that the admin role is difficult and there isn't enough time (or desire, I imagine) to look in detail, but blocking one person for POV-pushing when that person started a POV discussion on the talk page... which was then ignored once, again, again by the same person, who also added the same thing to the lead here and a previous diff and included some dollops of abuse ("stop editing pages that you know nothing about", "deceptive editors", "pathetic ... a dishonest attempt"), and that person refuses repeated requests on the talk page and edit summaries (starting here) to remove a not-in-source POV addition, well... I could go into more detail of how this was kicked off by the same editor returning 3 weeks after failing to gain consensus for a change and then reverting to his preferred version without discussion... so including "POV-pushing" in the reasons for blocking Gravuritas when he was responding to a POV push (I know: one POV push shouldn't be replaced by another) is just going to help preserve one set of POV problems, not help find middle ground. That's the (another?) frustrating thing. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I know that the admin role is difficult and there isn't enough time (or desire, I imagine) to look in detail...
- When you make a claim, you have to back it up if you want anyone to act on it or even care: that's not just true here, it's true everywhere. And no, it's not the admins jobs to make your case for you. Which you haven't done with these links. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- On a more pragmatic note, mooning the jury seldom works to one's advantage. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I apologise if I upset you. I was just expressing gloom that this was closed with POV-pushing included as a reason for blocking, when the editor was responding to POV-pushing, and discussions to deal with that were underway on the talk page (and which diff above actually presents Gravuritas POV-pushing?). And "you have to back it up if you want anyone to act on it or even care"... why would an admin not care about getting a better understanding of an issue raised here? EddieHugh (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- On a more pragmatic note, mooning the jury seldom works to one's advantage. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I know that the admin role is difficult and there isn't enough time (or desire, I imagine) to look in detail, but blocking one person for POV-pushing when that person started a POV discussion on the talk page... which was then ignored once, again, again by the same person, who also added the same thing to the lead here and a previous diff and included some dollops of abuse ("stop editing pages that you know nothing about", "deceptive editors", "pathetic ... a dishonest attempt"), and that person refuses repeated requests on the talk page and edit summaries (starting here) to remove a not-in-source POV addition, well... I could go into more detail of how this was kicked off by the same editor returning 3 weeks after failing to gain consensus for a change and then reverting to his preferred version without discussion... so including "POV-pushing" in the reasons for blocking Gravuritas when he was responding to a POV push (I know: one POV push shouldn't be replaced by another) is just going to help preserve one set of POV problems, not help find middle ground. That's the (another?) frustrating thing. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mind providing some actual evidence? --Calton | Talk 16:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just as discussions start on the talk page.... There have been worse personal attacks & POV-pushing on the article and in its edit summaries by others. This sort of outcome makes me inclined to give up. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see two obvious reverts around 2200, and a muddle of edits earlier which may only count as one revert. Regardless, his comments here are more than enough to justify the block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User:72.38.23.66 reported by User:331dot (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 72.38.23.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 09:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) to 09:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- 09:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"
- 09:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"
- 09:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Intelligent design. (TW)"
- 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Intelligent design. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "/* 72.38.23.66 */ new section"
- Comments:
User seems to object to the language of the article, likely due to their views on the subject itself. Has not responded to messages. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts, was warned prior, and no communication. Kuru (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Simply-the-truth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Elgin Marbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Simply-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 14:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC) to 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- 14:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "please discuss on talk before reverting again and again"
- 15:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "changed the fact to the actual quote from the source, from the Greece Cultural minister. This is sourced and relevant now"
- 15:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "changed legal to official, hope that is better for you? Removed the british historians quote as well, will add lower down in the article"
- 15:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "readded the UNESCO point and expanded it. Still think not needed in the lead at all as not that important a point"
- 15:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "put in date order of announcements, PLEASE use talk"
- 15:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "added correct dates"
- 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "sorry, corrected"
- 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "please dont remove sourced facts"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "please stop removing sourced facts, reported"
- 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "reported for removing sourced facts"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 19:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "they were the legal rulers at the time, so cant see the problem?"
- 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?"
- 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "need source for this claim? Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal"
- 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "properly sourced and reported, doesnt matter what country it was published in as you must know?"
- 19:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "again sourced"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elgin Marbles . (TW★TW)"
- 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Elgin Marbles . (TW★TW)"
- 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"
- 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ new section"
- 20:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ By the way this sentence is a direct copyvio from the source."
- 20:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ ce"
- 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, copyvio, POV/SYNTH-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */"
- Comments:
Repeatedly blanking well-sourced section, repeatedly adding copyvio from </nowiki>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/</nowiki>, repeatedly adding SYNTH and POV to article. Rapid-fire edit-warring. Marking all edits minor and using deceptive edit-summaries. Will not stop despite warnings and talkpage discussion where all these things have been pointed out to him/her. Dr. K. 11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have added sourced facts to the page, you keep trying to add unsourced ones? Why is that? You also remove my sourced edits, again why is this? Your points on the talk page are answered here for you as well: 1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Dr.K you keep saying discuss the different points and use talk, yet you never respond to any of my many posts and points on talk either? You simply thought by reporting me you could force your own opinion on the article? Please use talk to discuss and let's stop this silly disagreement, please? Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have added sourced facts to the page, you keep trying to add unsourced ones? Why is that? You also remove my sourced edits, again why is this? Your points on the talk page are answered here for you as well: 1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User:50.66.184.254 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Semi)
Page: Carmen Carrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.66.184.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Comments:
No policy reasons cited for user's changes despite multiple people reverting them. User declares intention to not discuss with this edit summary: [21]
--Xanzzibar (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Thewhitepandafan2017 reported by User:PaleoNeonate (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: List of mythological objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewhitepandafan2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25], [26]
Comments:
This editor has been adding flags massively. When reverted, they reverted or restored flags and continued to add them. When invited to discuss it and reach consensus, no effort was made to comply. Evidence of trolling may be the edit summary of this edit. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 24 hours for edit warring + 24 hours for the dubious editing. NeilN talk to me 04:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Vincearban28 reported by User:User 261115 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- Disney Channel (Southeast Asia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Vincearban28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Upcoming */"
- 00:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 05:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Disney Channel (Southeast Asia). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Very ignorant, was blocked before for the same edit warring. Nothing has changed, still continues to do the exact same edits and ignoring all the warnings given. User 261115 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Mark Imanuel Granados reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)
- Page
- Augustine of Hippo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mark Imanuel Granados (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC) m "(Undid revision 812141760 by Dr.K. (talk))"
- 06:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 05:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC) to 06:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This is the third report of this unstoppable account in about a week. Fresh from a 31-hour block by Longhair, he gets exactly to the same edit-warring he got blocked for all the other times. Today he is even reverting at an accelerated pace. Due to his unresponsiveness and longterm edit-warring he got a final warning from EdJohnston. Dr. K. 06:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I can't recall exactly what happened the other day, but I've just handed this user a 1 month block and if I can find where I said he's out for good I'll happily upgrade the block duration until he learns to communicate which I believe was a major part of the original complaint. -- Longhair\talk 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:WelshDragon30 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Jimmy Hendriks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WelshDragon30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:This user keeps adding the same unsourced info to this article, refuses to discuss this (I dont think they've ever used a talkpage) and they were previously blocked for doing the same thing on the very same article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 20:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Jaco IV reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: )
Page: KK Olimpija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaco IV (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: 3RR diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk page
Jaco IV is blindly reverting edits and is not willing to reply at his talk page. The user is also trying to force his own layout and styling which is not used anywhere on basketball or football articles, like capitalizing only the first letter of the word (never saw anything like that), changing "Third" to "3rd" etc. He has done this to several basketball club's articles without establishing any consensus and is ruining the well-established styling that was used everywhere for years, all this edits are against the general MoS rules. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Carolina kid reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: )
Page: Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carolina kid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [28] First addition of content that violates Talk page guidelines
- [29] Probable sockpuppet having conversation with himself here. Discussion still has nothing to do with improving article.
- [30] Here's where the edit warring starts. Note there is no real discussion of the article, just an attempt to disparage and generalize a group of people.
- [31] First reversion.
- [32] Second reversion, and user adds a reply to himself, likely sockmaster forgot to switch accounts.
- [33] Third reversion.
- [34] Fourth reversion. User notified of 3RR rules and Talk page rules at this point.
- [35] Fifth reversion and user replies to himself again.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
There is no diff of attempt to resolve this on Talk page, because this is the Talk page and there is no attempt by this user to actually improve an article, merely to have a discussion on the Talk page more suited to an internet fan forum (feels like trolling to me in the aftermath of a rivalry game and given a brand-new user account claiming to be a fan of a school outside the rivalry, but conspicuously making all of their first edits on Wiki in this article). Multiple attempts were made in Edit summaries to inform this user of relevant Wikipedia policies concerning proper use of article Talk page and 3RR, but user continued to revert and ignore warnings. So here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I hope this is the forum to properly defend myself. I had to do a bit of research but I think I have a full understanding of what I am being charged with.
- I am accused of being a sock puppet. I'm sure an administrator has the ability to look up my IP and see that I am not. I am not having a conversation with myself on the talk page, I am simply engaging in continuous critical thought and recording it on a single medium. If I was a sock puppet, I believe that i would be using language vindictive of someone attempting to gain consensus.
- Secondly, my credentials are being questioned. I am a graduate student in the School of Government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I can provide my PID, transcripts, ONYEN, ConnectCarolina Email, or whatever else you may need to add my education as a credential.
- I am accused of adding content to the talk page that doesn't have the potential to add meaningful content to the article or create productive discussion on the future betterment of said article. Here is what I have posted on the talk page:
USC Fans Throws Trash from stands I think it is pretty notable to have a fan base throw bottles and garbage onto the field and at the opposing team. Is this the first time that they have done this? Or is this a pattern of conduct by the fan base? Carolina kid (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to look into. Has this rivalry caused any additions of stadium rules for behavior like this? Any thoughts?Carolina kid (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC) So I'll look for consensus, anyone think it's worthwhile to look into for an included topic for behavior/incidents coming from the stand specific to this rivalry? I don't want to waste my time researching it if someone like garnet and black is just going to delete all of my discussion in talk on it. Texas and Miami have both recently littered the field with trash during a game as well. Carolina kid (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Lastly, I have been accused of being oddly invested in an article that doesn't personally relate to me. Firstly, editing on subjects that you are strongly opinionated about has an inherent cause for bias. Secondly, the USC-Clemson game came on after the Carolina-NC State game, and if you aren't aware, my team lost as well.
In conclusion, I feel that user Garnet and Black has a misunderstanding that being well versed in Wikipedia rules allows him to implement a perversion of the policies to negatively influence others, especially unaware new users like myself, for personal gain. Lastly, the edit warring is taking place on a talk page, so prohibiting dialogue here will create a case precedent for future stifling of communication and meaningful speech. Thank you for your time in this matter. Carolina kid (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @GarnetAndBlack: Both of you have violated WP:3RR. Seeing the article is about a rivalry, it seems reasonable that fan actions would potentially be part of the article. And your edit summary here does you no credit. @Carolina kid: Your initial post was not suitable for an article talk page which are meant to host discussions on how to improve articles. That means proposing a concrete change and providing reliable sources to show why the incident is notable. --NeilN talk to me 05:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
User:BlueandWhite2017 reported by User:Koodbuur (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Awdal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- BlueandWhite2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812261924 by Koodbuur (talk)"
- 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812261235 by Koodbuur (talk)"
- 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812233011 by Ciiseciise007 (talk)"
- 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812081364 by Ciiseciise007 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "warning"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
persistent edit warring in violation of WP:3RR, despite attempts to advise editor to use the talk page section Koodbuur (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
User:85.182.81.162 reported by User:Mr. Guye (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
- Page
- Tucupita Municipality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 85.182.81.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) to 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303978 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
- 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* References */"
- Consecutive edits made from 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) to 04:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303590 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
- 04:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */ broken link"
- 04:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "undo vandal // Undid revision 812303156 by Mr. Guye (talk)"
- 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (Tw)"
- 04:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"
- 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"
- 04:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Tucupita Municipality. (Tw)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 04:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ This is just ludicrous"
- Comments:
I was reverting this IP user for removing content without explanation. Then they started accusing me of vandalism. This is just ludicrous now. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The result of the vandal edits by User:Mr. Guye is visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucupita_Municipality&oldid=812304940 .... block her/him! 3RR + Vandal 85.182.81.162 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- IP, knock it off with the accusations of vandalism. It would have helped if you explained why you removed content while making other changes. --NeilN talk to me 05:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours IP and socks blocked after continuing harassment. Article semied. NeilN talk to me 05:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)