Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) →User:Usernamekiran reported by User:Earl of Arundel (Result: No violation): Formatting, fixed errors. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Earl of Arundel (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
::{{reply to|Earl of Arundel}} I apologise. I got a little carried away. It is just, it has been more than 50 hours that I couldn't fall asleep. I mean, I havent slept for more than 50 hours. It causes irritation. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
::{{reply to|Earl of Arundel}} I apologise. I got a little carried away. It is just, it has been more than 50 hours that I couldn't fall asleep. I mean, I havent slept for more than 50 hours. It causes irritation. —[[User:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran</span>]] ([[User talk:Usernamekiran|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">talk</span>]]) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::No worries, we're all human. [[User:Earl of Arundel|Earl of Arundel]] ([[User talk:Earl of Arundel|talk]]) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Dfalcon15]] reported by [[User:Muboshgu]] (Result: Blocked) == |
== [[User:Dfalcon15]] reported by [[User:Muboshgu]] (Result: Blocked) == |
Revision as of 21:35, 25 March 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:Olonia reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: No violation)
- User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Page: Malcolm Wanklyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New user disrupting a stable article. Deleting reliable sources for internet ones, and persists in changing information cited by reliable sources on Malcolm Wanklyn. Refusing to listen, threatening to edit war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here I am. You can chek my record, and you will see that I am not a 'new user'; instead, I have been on Wikipedia for years. The sources I have added to the articles are books from the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, that correct mistakes that any of you can check at ease. 'Refusing to listen' would define well User Dapi89. My threat was to report him from edit war, and here he is...--Olonia (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- No violation Use the article's talk page please. NeilN talk to me 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- ... whan can I do now? I wrote on the talk page to explain, and even linked it on Dapi89's talk page to make sure he would notice it, and instead he reverted my edit again while telling me to "prove what I said on the talk page". --Olonia (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please somebody help. Dapi89 keepts constantly reverting my edits, ignores the wall of text I have written in the talk page, and ignores the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where I have filed a request. He is refusing the judgment of this administrator, has falsely labelled me as a new user to put me in a bad light, and accuses me of deleting his sources (which I did not do, you can check) while deleting my sources. --Olonia (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- A lie. see here. Three deletions, and insertion of material into a paragraph which does not support it. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Olonia and Dapi89: Well now both of you have violated WP:3RR. I've fully protected the article for three days. If edit warring resumes after protection expires then both of you are looking at blocks. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- No you didn't. You reported me to him, refused his judgment, refused to discuss on the talk page or on the dispute resolution noticeboard until the page was luckily protected. And you still try to spread confusion.--Olonia (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's little point in continuing this here. In lieu of blocking both of you, I chose to protect the article instead. That's the result of this report. --NeilN talk to me 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
User:130.68.17.204 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: )
- Page
- Criminal Minds (season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 130.68.17.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771863405 by Callmemirela (talk)"
- 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771863198 by Callmemirela (talk)"
- 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771861858 by Andromeda~enwiki (talk)"
- 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771859597 by Callmemirela (talk)"
- 22:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Criminal Minds (season 12). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This IP suddenly appeared after I reverted Njorent's edit about removing spoilers. They are now edit warring. It could be Njorent editing logged out or potentially socking. I don't know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: And why should you not also be blocked for violating 3RR by edit warring with the IP and Njorent to such an extent? El_C 03:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have AN3 on my watchlist, so I apologize for not responding earlier. Njorent had reverted the other user's edit as "too much info", which I reverted per Wikipedia guideline. Then, out of nowhere, this IP does the same exact thing as Njorent was. It seems very unlikely, to me anyways, that it's not Njorent. The timing said it all. I wasn't sure if they were editing logged out or socking. If Njorent says they aren't them, then I apologize (they never told me they weren't). I will leave them a note after this. As for my part, yes I should have stopped at three. I did stop after filing this report (excluding after Njorent's edits after the IP stopped). I don't allow users to use IPs to prove their point, which is why I went a bit overboard. It was a simple mistake. Also, the IP refused to respond to edit summaries or user talk page; how would a talk page discussion help? If that warrants a block, so be it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- How about you choose between the following two sanctions: a 24 hour block or four days of 1RR on all pages? (With the usual exemptions.) I'll still log a quick block to let other admins know 3RR was breached (in the block log) if you choose the latter. El_C 05:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Option two. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- You got it. El_C 07:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Option two. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- How about you choose between the following two sanctions: a 24 hour block or four days of 1RR on all pages? (With the usual exemptions.) I'll still log a quick block to let other admins know 3RR was breached (in the block log) if you choose the latter. El_C 05:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have AN3 on my watchlist, so I apologize for not responding earlier. Njorent had reverted the other user's edit as "too much info", which I reverted per Wikipedia guideline. Then, out of nowhere, this IP does the same exact thing as Njorent was. It seems very unlikely, to me anyways, that it's not Njorent. The timing said it all. I wasn't sure if they were editing logged out or socking. If Njorent says they aren't them, then I apologize (they never told me they weren't). I will leave them a note after this. As for my part, yes I should have stopped at three. I did stop after filing this report (excluding after Njorent's edits after the IP stopped). I don't allow users to use IPs to prove their point, which is why I went a bit overboard. It was a simple mistake. Also, the IP refused to respond to edit summaries or user talk page; how would a talk page discussion help? If that warrants a block, so be it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Vikaskumar601 reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked indef)
- Page
- Graphic Era Hill University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Vikaskumar601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- 01:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "VC Profile updated"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has been warned multiple times in the past as well as banned for 36hrs a week ago, but keeps making the same additions. Has previously used sockpuppets to make changes. — IVORK Discuss 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely Copyvios. NeilN talk to me 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User:73.87.208.167 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)
- Page
- JJCC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 73.87.208.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC) (not vandalism. it is official sources.)
- 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC) weibo,facebook,instagram, and official websites was used as sources before. this is their official youtube. therefore it is a source.)
- 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "yes it is. it is their official channel. with an official upload of their third year anniversary. i am going to keep reverting it back because those are official channels of jjcc and of mnet."
- 07:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "The sources are reliable. It is jjcc's official YouTube, jjcc's Japanese agency official Instagram for jjcc and it is mnet official."
- 04:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Why are you removing my source information?"
- 02:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "I dont even know what awb is. stop accusing me off false stuff. anyway I edited it a little."
- 00:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "the information provided confirms that prince mak is not a member. therefore it is different from the information posted before. plus san cheong and yul are in produce 101"
- 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Will not stop adding unreliable sources. Edit-warring against multiple editors. Dr. K. 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User:120.61.52.90 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Shiv Sena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 120.61.52.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771994204 by Jim1138 (talk)"
- 18:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "dubious citation"
- 18:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771986763 by NeilN (talk)"
- 17:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "removing unsourced content"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Shiv Sena. (TW)"
- 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Shiv Sena. (TW)"
- 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shiv Sena. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Usual POV warring. NeilN talk to me 18:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Usernamekiran reported by User:Earl of Arundel (Result: No violation)
Page: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- (In good faith, I've reverted the sentence to undisputed version. It should remain that way till consensus is acquired on talk page. Undid revision 772046325 by Earl of Arundel (talk))
- (Removed excessive words. This gets the paragraph to the version 1-2 weeks earlier. Also removed "supposedly". It implied, for a fact, possibility of additional gunmen.)
Comments:
The wording that was removed had been discussed both here and here where this user had ample opportunity to weigh in before a consensus was reached.
After posting a warning to this user's talk page, User:Usernamekiran responded:
- @Earl of Arundel: In your message above, you provided a link to an edit history. The edit summary of this very edit states "a goodfaith revert", "a consensus should be held on the talkpage, and till then no edits should be made". From which perspective does it look like i am engaged in an edit war?
- Stop indirectly threatening other editors. You have given similar warnings to other editor(s) as well, and it was for no reason as well.
- Further discussion should take place on the talkpage of the article, and not here.
Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- A proper consensus was not achieved in the discussions mentioned by User:Earl of Arundel. In the end of the discussion, an editor "joegoodfriend" gave up to avoid further quarrel, and same happened with editor "Canada Jack", Jack agreed to a "halfway" sentence suggested by Earl of Arundel. While the discussion was going on, Earl of Arundel posted a warning on talkpage of Canada Jack. The accepted version by so called consensus doesnt refelct the exact summary by HSCA report.
- As for this specific edit, the version User:Earl of Arundel is suggesting, that version completely changes the conclusion of HSCA report. This is the reason why I edited it to reflect proper conclusions. User:Earl of Arundel copy-pasted my edit summaries himself above, in the first edit summary I explicitly requested for a new consensus. And yet, he posted this warning on my talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- PS: User:Canada Jack, and User:Joegoodfriend are both experienced, longtime editors on wikipedia. And they are very knowledgeable in the field of assassination of JFK. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seeking consensus on contentious subjects should be done before making changes. I for one would have gladly discussed the issue had you started a new section on the talk page. But you didn't do that. You simply made the changes as if no prior discussion had ever taken place. If you really had objected to the insertion of that wording at the time that it was being debated then why didn't you say so then? I'm all for being WP:BOLD, but the way you're going about things is just plain anti-collaborative. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: The user reverted the edits again, without any sort of consesus, the discussion on the talkpage hasnt even been initiated yet. He made the revert after you gave out the result. I think this constitutes as edit war.
- @Earl of Arundel: you are talking about being collaborative? You dont even reply to discussions after your edits to article even when you are properly pinged, like here for example. In most of your discussions with other users, you are not even courteous.
- @Bbb23: i humbly request you take a look at his history, which will not be much time consuming. Less than 80 edits in mainspace, most of which were opposed by other editors.
- Earl of Arundel (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- —usernamekiran (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your changes on the basis that they constitute WP:OR, and shortly thereafter created a new section on the talk page to explain that. Furthermore, if you want to accuse someone of being discourteous, perhaps you should consider the crude emails which you've sent me (such as your first one, which in its entirety bluntly blurts out "now you can answer my question"), or such bizarre utterances as "@Earl of Arundel: Would you eulogise idiosyncratic scintillating onomasticon website to me?". Or your WP:HOUND behaviour of 'thanking' me for inconsequential edits I've made to pages which you have never edited yourself. Not very civil, in my opinion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- You didnt mention why you requested me to send that email to you. And since when thanking for some good edit has been considered as "not very civil"? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was in response to your posting of the inappropriate question "I was wondering, are you randomly choosing pages pages to edit, or is there any reason/pattern?" that I simply responded "Please refrain from asking conversational questions on user talk pages (I will however accept banter in messages; use "Email this user" link to the left of page for that))". So there was no request on my part for an email. With regard to how the mere act of thanking someone could possibly be construed as a form of incivility, it's just a matter of context. Why would you consistently post divisive comments and then turn around and thank me for making extremely minor edits to pages which you haven't edited yourself (and thus must for some reason be following my edits). To quote the section on wikihounding: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight". Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- You are forgetting that you didnt "respond" to it. It was a polite conversation which you reverted. And your "response" was in edit summary, you can see it here. The email you are talking about, it was not rude at all. It was simply precise.
- You even tried to (actually did) discourage and demoralise me by saying, and I quote "You have a poor command of the English language, that's the problem [...] Perhaps you would be better off editing this encyclopedia instead?"
- And as per your "hounding" accusation, you have less than 80 mainspace edits, at the time when I thanked you for your edit, you had fewer than that. Your edit was easily visible, I didnt have to "dig up" your history. Stop making big deal out of nothing. It universal, oppose bad edits, acclaim good ones; thats what I did. And yes, I never edited that article, you are right. But how would you know that? My accound is more than 4 years old, and I have +500 edits on articles. So, seems like you have been tracking my edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why don't we just get down to the point then. Are we really to believe that you made those changes without any thought that it may stir up controversy, considering the fact that tens of thousands of words were exchanged in a debate on the topic just weeks before? Or, is your dislike for an editor really so strong that you simply can't control yourself enough to exercise a little common decency? Let's move on, Kiran. Present your arguments on the talk page and seek consensus. Provide citations from reliable sources. Let's put our egos aside and find a reasonable solution. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was in response to your posting of the inappropriate question "I was wondering, are you randomly choosing pages pages to edit, or is there any reason/pattern?" that I simply responded "Please refrain from asking conversational questions on user talk pages (I will however accept banter in messages; use "Email this user" link to the left of page for that))". So there was no request on my part for an email. With regard to how the mere act of thanking someone could possibly be construed as a form of incivility, it's just a matter of context. Why would you consistently post divisive comments and then turn around and thank me for making extremely minor edits to pages which you haven't edited yourself (and thus must for some reason be following my edits). To quote the section on wikihounding: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight". Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not goofball Earl. A goofball with extremely high IQ, and knowledge, and goofballs don't have ego. Again, I thin the case is exactly opposite, and that your ego was hurt somewhere-sometime. And again, you are deflecting. You always do that when you've nothing for an answer.
But I agree with you on this. As of now, I'm searching for sources. It will take time. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate your humble effort. We all have egos and this is often compounded by the fact that others sometimes misunderstand our true intentions. But, we also have a common (and very noble) goal to improve the encyclopedia and we shouldn't let the personal conflicts interfere with that too much, should we? Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Earl of Arundel: I do not have any "personal conflicts" with you Earl.
I simply think you are mistaken about HSCA report, and what constitute as "commonly used English". But I must compliment you for your MO. It is very impressive.
- You use extremely sophisticated English vocabulary, creating an impression.
- If somebody opposes you, you find something about tat editor to issue a warning, instilling a little fear.
- Then you initiate a discussion, where bombarding with incomprehensible vocabulary, you try to prove your point.
- You use "if you cant convince, then confuse".
- If some editor points out something, that you dont know how to answer, or dont want to answer, you simply deflect, or you create a diversion.
- If the situations deteriorates for you, you start to be polite, and apologetic.
- You not just issued a warning on my talkpage, but you complained here.
But "thats just my opinion" —usernamekiran (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Earl of Arundel: I apologise. I got a little carried away. It is just, it has been more than 50 hours that I couldn't fall asleep. I mean, I havent slept for more than 50 hours. It causes irritation. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, we're all human. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Dfalcon15 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Game of Thrones (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Dfalcon15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- 04:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor has also been edit warring on the other Game of Thrones season pages (check edit history). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. Edit warring on a number of Game of Thrones articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)