Neutrality (talk | contribs) →User:Jytdog reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: ): closing as no violation |
Adding new report for CWJakarta. (TW) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 315: | Line 315: | ||
:: I might not be as eloquent in wording as you are, but I love my country and care about the historical accuracy of the page. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda that is equal to that of russian propaganda trolls [[User:JonSonberg|JonSonberg]] ([[User talk:JonSonberg|talk]]) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
:: I might not be as eloquent in wording as you are, but I love my country and care about the historical accuracy of the page. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda that is equal to that of russian propaganda trolls [[User:JonSonberg|JonSonberg]] ([[User talk:JonSonberg|talk]]) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
{{archive bottom}} |
||
== [[User:202.67.39.21]] reported by [[User:Adamfinmo]] (Result: ) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|202.67.39.21}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# {{diff2|758550441|03:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "revert wrong edit by another user" |
|||
# {{diff2|758549024|03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548672|03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548364|02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548273|02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548149|02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
IP is edit warring over the word "International" in the lede. [[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:CWJakarta]] reported by [[User:Adamfinmo]] (Result: ) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|CWJakarta}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# {{diff2|758551979|03:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "A little edit" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548826|03:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by [[Special:Contribs/202.67.39.21|202.67.39.21]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.21|talk]]) to last version by CWJakarta" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548534|02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by [[Special:Contribs/202.67.39.21|202.67.39.21]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.21|talk]]) to last version by CWJakarta" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548293|02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by [[Special:Contribs/202.67.39.21|202.67.39.21]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.21|talk]]) to last version by CWJakarta" |
|||
# {{diff2|758548207|02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by [[Special:Contributions/202.67.39.21|202.67.39.21]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.21|talk]]) to last revision by CWJakarta. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|758547974|02:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by [[Special:Contribs/202.67.39.29|202.67.39.29]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.29|talk]]) to last version by CWJakarta" |
|||
# {{diff2|758547276|02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by [[Special:Contribs/202.67.39.29|202.67.39.29]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.29|talk]]) to last version by CWJakarta" |
|||
# {{diff2|758546919|02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by [[Special:Contributions/202.67.39.29|202.67.39.29]] ([[User talk:202.67.39.29|talk]]) to last revision by AirEnthusiast. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
# {{diff2|758550806|03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section" |
|||
# {{diff2|758553330|03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Edit warring */ new section" |
|||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
This user has engaged in massive edit warring and continued to do so after having been warned twice and acknowledged those warning. A block is in order here. [[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:43, 6 January 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:TheBellaTwins1445 reported by User:DantODB (Result: No violation, Semi)
Page: Alexa Bliss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheBellaTwins1445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
User refuses to collaborate with a handful of other users. I've seen that most of their edits have to do with not matching the information presented on the article with the proper citation, claiming "more sources" are needed when there's already properly cited reliable citations provided, as well as reverting edits that make information more cohesive. DantODB 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: No violation of 3RR, but the editing of this article is very confused. There has been IP vandalism and possible sockpuppetry. See also the closure of a previous AN3 report in which DantODB was blocked. I've semiprotected the article for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Contentcreator reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Hydraulic fracturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Contentcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758019152 by Chrissymad (talk)"
- 00:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 757975452 by Dmartin969 (talk) the source says the information directly and does not "directly link" anywhere please provide more information before reverting"
- 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Environmental impacts */ removing cnn story the claim was not supported by the source and not enough info to reword. Went to AP and US news could not get additional information for claim"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Hydraulic fracturing. (TW)"
- 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hydraulic fracturing. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeatedly removing sourced claims as IP and under username. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reply
-
- The cnn story is seperate and I was going to talk about it on the user talk page(758017259) I did not revert that I was discussing it with another user from earlier on their talk page that took issue that I removed it.Someone reverted a separate change without an explanation. So I reverted it. She then reverts mine again without reason but with a claim that I am engaging in an edit war. This is incorrect as I just wanted an explanation. My reasoning is justified she is without justification.I reverted once when the person made a revert without a response and a second time when she reverted my revert with an unfounded claim. I also cited the line from the source in my change.
- The source says directly "USGS studies suggest that this process is only rarely the cause of felt earthquakes."
- My line read "Hydraulic fracturing has been rarely linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."
- The line before said "Hydraulic fracturing has been directly linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."
- The line before the previous person edited which was accurate "Hydraulic fracturing has been sometimes linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes."
- The cnn story is seperate and I was going to talk about it on the user talk page(758017259) I did not revert that I was discussing it with another user from earlier on their talk page that took issue that I removed it.Someone reverted a separate change without an explanation. So I reverted it. She then reverts mine again without reason but with a claim that I am engaging in an edit war. This is incorrect as I just wanted an explanation. My reasoning is justified she is without justification.I reverted once when the person made a revert without a response and a second time when she reverted my revert with an unfounded claim. I also cited the line from the source in my change.
- Result: Warned for edit warring. You have a surprising number of talk page warnings for a person who has only been here for two days. Your behavior on this article looks like a crusade to make fracking seem as harmless as possible. If you continue to make controversial changes (such as removal of references, and removal of negative statements about fracking) without first getting a consensus on the talk page you may be blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:68.184.153.171 and User:Slavuta33 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Warned)
Page: Ilya Repin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.184.153.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slavuta33 (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: first edit at User talk:68.184.153.171
Talk:Ilya Repin#Nationality in the lede
Comments:
This is obviously the same user, as seen from the diffs and also suggested by Antandrus at the talk page of the IP. The user/IP are not just edit-warring, their edits are obviously disruptive and include removing a reference to Britannica which they do not like with the reference to an obscure Ukrainian cite of unclear notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The IP is now edit-warring at Igor Stravinsky as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and this needs to be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Antandrus for comment, since he has posted on the IP's talk page, and he has stated that the IP is the same person as User:Slavuta33. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed and Ymblanter ... yes, it's the same person, with no doubt whatsoever. Since they were new I was more-or-less assuming good faith they were inadvertently editing logged out, not evading my copyright warning, placed earlier this morning (Slavuta33 copied and pasted directly from www.encyclopediaofukraine.com; see here). That's a separate issue from the edit warring and nationalist POV-pushing, of course. Appreciate your help. Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Antandrus for comment, since he has posted on the IP's talk page, and he has stated that the IP is the same person as User:Slavuta33. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: User:Slavuta33 is warned per this message, and alerted to WP:ARBEE since a Russian versus Ukrainian dispute is going on. He replied on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#Reply from User:Slavuta33. Please report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Edwtie reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page: Cochlear implant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edwtie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; see also OR warning here and notably their response here (I am expert of Cochlear implant. Don't use editing war. It's NO research but it's facts of cochleair implants.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cochlear_implant#History
Comments:
This article of cochlear implants is NPOV because deaf comunnity were very anrgy to Jytdog. I will try rewritten this article but Jytdoy do attrack to this. Edwtie (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- For info, the text being added by Edwtie appears to be WP:COPYVIO from Infogalactic !! Roxy the dog. bark 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not COI editor. Cochlear implant is NPOV article. I have many sources. it has in another sources from science. It will added soon in this articles. I have read this articles Edwtie (talk) I have checked a article from infogalactic but they have copied this article from wikipedia. They have created this text from wikipedia. See: (cur | prev) 04:28, 4 February 2016 MediaWiki default (talk) . . (592 bytes) (+592). And This article has been created already in 2012.
- See now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&diff=prev&oldid=526254369 Edwtie (talk) e 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nice catch, User:Roxy the dog and thanks Ymblanter. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have found this: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&action=history . This user have created this article in janaury 2016. Edwtie (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: User:Edwtie is warned that further reverting, or addition of copyrighted content, may lead to a block of their account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- EdJonston, you will not understand. I have founded sources but content was from old versions of Cochlear implant from wikipedia. but it has no sources. it will be rewritten from old versions. It will be rebuild from old versions and it will added sources into content. This content is almost good but it will added more courses to clear. Edwtie (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Edwtie, with a limited grasp of English I'd advise you to stay away from controversies. ("it will added more courses to clear"?). It is hard to perceive your point. Anyway, you were edit warring on 3 January and could have been blocked then. The next time you make a large content change at Cochlear implant without previous consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- word courses is wrong. I means sources (from research or other) I have putted now in sandbox of Cochlear implant to rebuild. I know about cochlear implants. It must balance between two communieties. but nobody have asked to rewritten or added more sources. sandbox is a good solution for rewritten content. And I have found archive from consesus. nobody have added commented to proposal of Jytog. [8] I think that nobody have rewritten. I added sandbox of cochlear implant to rewritten Edwtie (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Edwtie, with a limited grasp of English I'd advise you to stay away from controversies. ("it will added more courses to clear"?). It is hard to perceive your point. Anyway, you were edit warring on 3 January and could have been blocked then. The next time you make a large content change at Cochlear implant without previous consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- EdJonston, you will not understand. I have founded sources but content was from old versions of Cochlear implant from wikipedia. but it has no sources. it will be rewritten from old versions. It will be rebuild from old versions and it will added sources into content. This content is almost good but it will added more courses to clear. Edwtie (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page: Influenza vaccine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts, picking up from the last EWN notice I filed here, which had a last diff dated Dec 26:
- diff 06:23, 30 December 2016
- diff 02:34, 31 December 2016
- diff 08:32, 31 December 2016 (tagging article)
- diff 03:17, 1 January 2017 again tagging
- diff 01:06, 2 January 2017 back to trying EW content in
- diff 03:18, 3 January 2017
- diff 22:54, 3 January 2017
- diff 03:45, 4 January 2017
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Influenza_vaccine#Lead_recommendation_summary and subsequent sections.
Comments:
Prior report here. BigBaby23 actually complained that I filed that here but they moderated their behavior a bit (note no edit warring diffs from Dec 26 (end of last report) an Dec 30, but when it was allowed to drift off the page with no action, they just picked up where they left off, trying to force content into the article that is not accepted by any other editor at the page.
here they accuse User:Doc James of advocacy, for pete's sake. And most recently here they "threatened" to start a criticism section.
Again, their last block for edit warring fringe-y content on a health article led to a 2 week block. More is needed. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So after I filed the first EWN case linked above, they stopped edit warring and tried to seek consensus on the Talk page with a series of drafts for the content. I filed this one, and they again actually used DR. This editor understands exactly what they are doing, and they are gaming the system, edit warring to try to force their content in and only resorting to DR when a block is imminent. Bad news. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
User:2602:306:301E:E2F0:8CF:2CFF:F72C:D114 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result:Blocked)
- Page
- Operation Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2602:306:301E:E2F0:8CF:2CFF:F72C:D114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&curid=22618&diff=758358346&oldid=758358285
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=758358087&oldid=758356931
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=next&oldid=758352357
- 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC) "Nazis don't exist, and this word does not make reference to the name of the party and ideology. Every German at the time lived through Communist terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government with the terrorists shooting in cities."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Operation Barbarossa. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=758343269&oldid=758343112
- Comments:
IP has attempted to remove the word "Nazi" from the article and insert additional language unrelated to the battle. IP was asked to make case on discussion page but instead continued edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS Three additional reverts were made after filing this. I have updated these above but don't intend to any further. At least five editors have been reverted by the IP.
I am providing context of the time period with feelings towards soviet union. I have given nothing but facts and concrete justification for the war on Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:301E:E2F0:8CF:2CFF:F72C:D114 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:HornetsMike reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result:Blocked)
- Page
- WITS Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- HornetsMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* References */"
- 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758367774 by Adam9007 (talk)"
- 00:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* References */"
- 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* References */"
- 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* References */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on WITS Academy. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I usually block shorter, but here we've got unsourced additions, and some might be hoaxes (I mean Fox logos that I've deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Jytdog reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: No violation)
- Page
- South Beach Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758371021 by Ibadibam (talk) again,. I look forward to your comments on the dispute on Talk."
- 01:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758370336 by Ibadibam (talk) if you have something to say, say it on talk. this is lame."
- 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758365813 by Ibadibam (talk) there is no valid dispute of this passage."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Removing maintenance templates */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User is removing maintenance template related to a dispute in which that user is involved. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ay the OP parachuted from ANI where they made a clueless !vote, and into a behavior issue (not a content dispute), and is blindly tagging the article, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. There is no content dispute - there is only disruptive editing by an editor about be topic banned at ANI. Why Ibadidam has chosen to actually pretend that there is a valid content dispute, I have no idea; no one who has looked at this sees a content dispute, except Amnccaff who as I said is on the edge of a TBAN. I have asked the OP three times to state their position on the "content dispute" - diff, diff, diff at the article Talk page. no response. Again there is no valid content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I see 3 reverts, so it is not a 3RR violation. I just took a quick look at the page and the ANI, and I think that Jytdog's description is accurate. That said, Jytdog, it would be no big deal to have just left that small inline under discussion tag there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: No violation Neutralitytalk 02:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:2600:1017:B41F:AAC4:6530:A482:4E74:A987 reported by User:JFG (Result: Semi)
- Page
- International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2600:1017:B41F:AAC4:6530:A482:4E74:A987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "These are well-established facts beyond rational dispute, as shown in the reliable sources. The fact that you dispute them merely indicates your own bias and manifest inadequacy as a thinker."
- 06:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Revert edit warring vandal who keeps deleting references sans edit summary. Undid revision 758406917 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
- 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Restore unexplained deletion of well-sourced, much-needed content. Undid revision 758406697 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
- 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "tweak"
- 06:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Restore well-referenced, highly relevant background to the international reaction; namely, the Russian interference in the 2016 election with the aim of electing Donald Trump as U.S. president so as to promote their interests, via international espionage."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit warring by IP to insert POV material which is unrelated to the article subject, reverted by multiple users — JFG talk 08:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:JonSonberg reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Protected)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JonSonberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:42, 4 January 2017
- 19:44, 4 January 2017
- 19:45, 4 January 2017
- 19:46, 4 January 2017
- 19:52, 4 January 2017
- 23:00, 4 January 2017
- 09:15, 5 January 2017
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This warning was given after this revert.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some other user tried dealing with this situation, but JonSonberg just showed hostility (1 and 2).
Comments:
- He was blocked not long ago for the same behavior on other articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Jon:
- Read your own links. "Some other user" was the person deleting the content. And another person supported me on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1) This was reverting content deletion not edit warring. 2) Why are you not reporting the other user who deleted large amounts of content that had been on the page for over half a year? 3) You gave a warning after all the reverts had already happened. But you are displaying it here like you have given a warning and then I proceeded to revert the other user's edits. This is immoral. 4) The other user was deleting massive amounts of content from the page, which I reverted. I was not adding content. 5) It's immoral that you are reporting me not the other user. 6) There are other users who have supported my reverts in this case on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- article, as a single article for a single sentence not in plural. Which I accept and have not done anymore. This has nothing to do with it. And you were the one reporting me. JonSonberg (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I added this on the Talk page: The time in history from 540 to 1050 AD is defined as "The Estonian Viking Age" in Estonia by the University of Tartu and it's also included in the school curriculum. Referenced here. Specific details on what to write and display there can be debated. But users are not to delete this section from history. It covers 500 years of AD history of Estonia. JonSonberg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved ed here; the first five diffs in the report are an uninterrupted series, which usually is counted as a single revert. Note to anyone verifying what I just said - the time stamps in the report are two hours off what appears in the version history. So the list of Diffs shows 3 reverts, just shy of 3RR. That said, re-reverts without meaningful discussion are edit warring except in clear cut examples of policy violations and this looks like a content dispute dressed up as anti vandalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Footnote to initial closing
- A. WP:ARBEE is explicitly about Russia-Estonia conflict (see motions section defining scope). There is another ARB ruling about Eastern Europe generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes
- B. @EdJohnston: I don't understand why JonSonberg's prior history merits alerting him and no one else. Please recall that when we revamped DS in 2013-2014 a H-U-G-E amount of discussion went into termination of "cause" factors for these alerts. The idea was to reduce their perception as badges of shame and use by one side against another. I know you don't mean them like that, but this is besides the point.As I understand the new DS alert policy, anyone including involved eds are welcome to give these no-fault/no-shame FYI alerts about DS to anyone working in that area, so long as they haven't already been alerted in the last 12 months. When I enter one of these areas I usually alert myself, just to help people I subsequently alert can relax about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – 2 weeks. This seems to be a complex dispute about article quality. Consider opening up an WP:RFC on the talk page to resolve the content issue. JonSonberg states "you cannot DELETE content that other users have created and is historically correct." That is NOT part of Wikipedia policy. If material is considered excessive or if someone wants to locate it on a different page (such as History of Estonia), it can be removed. But these removals depend on editor consensus. Since JonSonberg was previously blocked for Baltic-related edits I am alerting him to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I support the decision. But Estonia is in Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe as your WP:ARBEE tag links to. Enjoy january. JonSonberg (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try. Search the WP:ARBEE case for the word 'Estonia'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which shows that someone has previously included Estonia as an eastern european country, nothing else JonSonberg (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try. Search the WP:ARBEE case for the word 'Estonia'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I support the decision. But Estonia is in Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe as your WP:ARBEE tag links to. Enjoy january. JonSonberg (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - involved editor here, so take it with all the necessary grain of salt, but frankly to me it seems that User:JonSonberg has some basic competency issues. I have hard time seeing other reason for repeated insertion of unsourced trivia despite objections, especially then he is sometimes duplicating facts that are already in the article.--Staberinde (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I might not be as eloquent in wording as you are, but I love my country and care about the historical accuracy of the page. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda that is equal to that of russian propaganda trolls JonSonberg (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:202.67.39.21 reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: )
- Page
- Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 202.67.39.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "revert wrong edit by another user"
- 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
IP is edit warring over the word "International" in the lede. Adam in MO Talk 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:CWJakarta reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: )
- Page
- Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- CWJakarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "A little edit"
- 03:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
- 02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
- 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
- 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last revision by CWJakarta. (TW)"
- 02:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
- 02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
- 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last revision by AirEnthusiast. (TW)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section"
- 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user has engaged in massive edit warring and continued to do so after having been warned twice and acknowledged those warning. A block is in order here. Adam in MO Talk 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)