EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
::I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that [[WP:3RR|3RR]] was also reached by Joe V at [[Mandeville, Jamaica]]. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
::I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that [[WP:3RR|3RR]] was also reached by Joe V at [[Mandeville, Jamaica]]. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Brownlife]] reported by [[User:Ivar the Boneful]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Brownlife]] reported by [[User:Ivar the Boneful]] (Result: Both warned) == |
||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Tanya Plibersek}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|Tanya Plibersek}} |
||
Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
Brownlife is now edit-warring on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Coutts-Trotter&diff=prev&oldid=806211080 a second page]. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] and possibly [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Ivar the Boneful|Ivar the Boneful]] ([[User talk:Ivar the Boneful|talk]]) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
Brownlife is now edit-warring on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Coutts-Trotter&diff=prev&oldid=806211080 a second page]. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] and possibly [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Ivar the Boneful|Ivar the Boneful]] ([[User talk:Ivar the Boneful|talk]]) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' [[User:Brownlife]] and [[User:Ivar the Boneful]] are both '''warned'''. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked, unless they have got a prior consensus on the talk page. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:53, 20 October 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. |
|
IP:92.194.54.218 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Protected)
Page: Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.194.54.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per here [6] an experience IP which is hoping from one IP to another.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
We may need a range block on this IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No need to block anything, because 1. Doc James did not ask first, he reverted first. 2. Doc James claimed side effects were removed, while they were in fact merged 3. Doc James claimed trial at discussion on the talk page of the article collides, time wise, with me telling him to ask first, if he doesn't understand the world around him, not revert first 4. That article is now full of unsourced, and in fact wrong, percentages in regard to side effects, uses silly abbreviations, has no sensible structure, cites /only/ an arbitrary selection of many dozens of drug interactions for no good reason whatsoever, and I've lost count of what else. Besides a ton of style and white space issues to horrifying to even think of. Which leads me to 5. I won't be editing again any time soon. Go enjoy your burnt soil, sit in your own shit. Have fun. Great way to treat experienced, knowledgable editors, by the way. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours [spent on Wikipedia editing]" is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Replied on the IP's talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours [spent on Wikipedia editing]" is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. Do act, but act blindly. Make especially sure not to check the actual content of my edits, in comparison to the state two days ago, else you might find I actually improved the situation; except I had to do it over and over again. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Update Still zero response on the talk page by the IP[8] and another 4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James and Jytdog: I've put this under full protection to give a possible rangeblock discussion time to conclude. This is without prejudice - I'm merely noting the back and forth as evidence of a dispute; I have not reviewed diffs in detail (no time, sry). Full prot should be removed when a decision has been made over blocking/rangeblocking. Samsara 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- "zero response on the talk page" is bullshit if you take a look at my summary lines: I actually kept your substantially wrong and otherwise bad summary in the heading until there was no more point to it whatsoever. Same goes for the interactions, that section was fully reworked, not simply removed. In vast contrast, you didn't provide any sensible summary line on your last revert whatsoever. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- And sure, /you/ say "semi protection would have been sufficient" so you can keep up your bad work. Got to be kidding me. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Naturally, I kindly request the most recent vandalistic reversion by Doc_James, done just before the page was protected, to be undone, and thereby the last good version to be restored. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I'm mostly here just to watch some drama, but I would like draw attention to the incivility of some of 92.194.54.218's edit summaries. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – Fully protected three days by User:Samsara. It's unclear why there is such a big fight over something that seems resolvable. The IP is trying to prove that IPs should be respected but by methods that are unlikely to work: being very aggressive, using lots of personal attacks, making charges of 'vandalism', and suggesting that the other party should be banned. "Bugger off, I get it. Registered idiots can jam whatever sensible edits, don't need to explain their reverts, don't need to comment their vandalism, as IPs are 2nd class editors. Same old, same old." [9]. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:M.Billoo2000 reported by User:TheGreatWikiLord (Result: )
- Page
- Multan Sultans in 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "repeated info as of now, and too early to create a new page. already tried to discuss."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
- 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Please also see Multan Sultans, 2018 Pakistan Super League, and 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft, 2018_Pakistan_Super_League#Venues, and Peshawar_Zalmi_in_2018. Constant trolling and edit useless criticizing such as User_talk:TheGreatWikiLord#Multan_.27Sultans.27.3F.
Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc_James reported by User:92.194.54.218 (Result: Protected)
- Page
- Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Doc_James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
All reverts done today (19 October 2017) and yesterday (18 October 2017), four-ish in total, with virtually zero constructive work.
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
All diffs done today (19 October 2017), equals all diffs after and including revision 806027301.
- Comments:
Keeps reverting tons of proper editing without comment or communication, then blames me. Please see edit history of article, alongside with these explanations and collections of edit differences Talk:Oxcarbazepine#Summary, User_talk:Doc_James#Shoot_first.2C_ask_questions_later., and the above statements in his gross attempt to actually ban me. I did explain my actions in summary lines. I completely overhauled the article. However, Doc_James keeps reverting all changes without any sensible comment whatsoever. His different options would be to first ask on user talk page, so he can receive an explanation on what he doesn't understand, and to apply the fixes of minor issues he finds in large edits or consecutive edit bundles, instead of reverting them fully. No attempt to seriously communicate has been done whatsoever, apart from citing "zero response" to a talk page section which wasn't in the least bit relevant any more at that time; see my response there. No change in lack of sensible use of summary line has been implemented, either. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pertains to issue above.
- This IP has made more than 8 reverts in that time period. They have been reverted by three different editors (with me being one).
- I started a talk page discussion yesterday.
- I have not surpassed 3 reverts in 24 hrs. Nor Have I insulted anyone involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Doc_James did reversions with IDs 806055504, 805963222, 805959693, 805899611. Thats four. Accidentally counted a self-revert first, too. Why those reversions are malicious is as outline above.
- As much as I didn't want to comment on this as I am an uninvolved editor (and also, not and admin), I feel like like maybe a third-opinion might help instead of just involved parties going at each other. I have no knowledge of the subject area so I cannot comment if any of the additions/removals are factually wrong or not.
- I took some time to compose a timeline which might help in assessing this matter:
- 10:14, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' first revert
- 18:47, 18 October 2017 - IP's first revert
- 18:51, 18 October 2017 - IP posts on Doc James' talk page under the title Shoot first, ask questions later.
- 18:55, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' replies asking why interactions and summary in the lead were removed
- 18:56, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' second revert
- 19:00, 18 October 2017 - Doc James posts on the talk page of the article asking the same question under the title Summary
- 19:21, 18 October 2017 - IP explains the edit on Doc James' talk page
- 19:23, 18 October 2017 - IP's second revert
- 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' warns about 3RR on his talk page
- 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' third revert
- 19:52, 18 October 2017 - IP complains about the reverts on Doc James' talk page
- Further edits by IP on the article
- 11:24, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' fourth revert
- 11:34, 19 October 2017 - Samsara applies page protection to Oxcarbazepine
- 11:38, 19 October 2017 - IP replies to Doc James' question on talk page of the article
- 11:46, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' replies to IP's answer
- 12:04, 19 October 2017 - IP informs Doc James about edit warring noticeboard report
- 12:10, 19 October 2017 - IP further defends his edits on talk page of the article [Actually: "her edits" :-) 92.194.54.218]
- Edits by Doc James: I feel this edit here by Doc James was inappropriate. The revert undid all the edits done by the IP whereas the edit summary only addressed a part of the revert. The part it addressed was also incorrect, as the IP pointed out, it wasn't removal of the "side effects", it was a merge. This was a repetition of the previous revert and didnt seem to provide any further reasoning. Same for this edit. Not sure about this edit since I dont understand the context of that edit summary.
- "[…] since I dont understand the context of that edit summary", well neither do I; it's incomprehensible. All I see is, that it undoes all the work again. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Edits by IP 92.194.54.218: From a cursory look over edits, I feel they were justified and accurate to their edit summaries (at least, the ones which focused on content and not talk-backs to reversions). The edit summary in this edit was uncalled for. There's no need to be throwing insults at people. Also, Doc James' edits are not vandalism. From WP:VANDAL, vandalism means "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". I am sure Doc James does not intend to defeat the project's purpose.
- Well, frankly, the purpose of the edit which "was uncalled for" was twofold, equally to vent and to protest. While I do see that I should apologise, I still don't truly want to. IP edits are subject to completely unexplained and arbitrary reversions all the time; never any questions beforehand, never any consideration for the big picture by fixing minor mistakes and thereby keeping the improvement. The only thing which makes this incident a staggering example is that I showed even the slightest amount of persistence and two reverters were involved. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think its best that IP's edits are restored (since they appear to be constructive and their arguments against Doc James' concerns seem valid). As for any sanctions or blocks, I'd say there's no reason for such action. I'd prefer if the only end result of this is that the page becomes better for the readers. Doc James' made the edits due to his concerns about the IP's edits. The IP made edits because they felt it made the page better and blocking them would just mean shooing away another editor who intends on improving the encyclopaedia. Although the situation could've been handled better had discussion started earlier on without any reversions, both editors had good intentions. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am confused. Doc James originally reported 92.194.54.218 (above) and now 92.194.54.218 is reporting Doc James as a separate incident. Is there more to this than a tit for tat reprisal? Would it not make sense to consolidate the two discussions into a single thread, assuming this one has any possible merit at all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Citobun reported by User:STSC (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page: 2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Comments:
The user has been persistently and indiscriminately reverting edits with wild accusations and repeated personal attacks on other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs)
- I apologise for the reverts. However, this comes after YEARS of dealing with this user's disruptive editing. The reporting user is a long-term political agenda editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she has been sanctioned in the past for agenda editing with regard to Falun Gong topics, and has been reported numerous times for pushing a low-level, long-term, pro-Beijing campaign of Wikipedia censorship that is blatantly incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Removing photos of the Taiwanese president without any reasoning grounded in Wikipedia policy, removing mention of the Taiwanese government for no reason – it all just amounts to disruptive, low-level vandalism. Secondly, I have not made personal attacks on other users and I object to that unsubstantiated allegation. Complaining about political agenda editing, a violation of Wikipedia policy, does not constitute a personal attack. Lastly I suggest the closing admin Ctrl+F my talk page for "STSC" for an idea of this user's inclination toward reporting me for objecting to his/her groundless censorship. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – 24 hours. I suggest that Citobun lay off the abuse of STSC in the edit summaries ('long term political agenda editor'). It does not clarify the issues for the closing admin, and if it were taken to ANI it is unlikely that any action would be taken against STSC on those grounds. The issues you were warring about on this article could be settled by ordinary WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:ArtemTacoLover reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ArtemTacoLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale."
- 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale. Do I need to repeat again?"
- 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Stop."
- 19:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Xbox 360 E console is still on sale."
- 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Xbox 360. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Xbox 360 E */ new section"
- Comments:
User continues to revert without telling the difference between a company's production line versus units still on the shelf. An attempt at a Talk page discussion was ignored. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
User:GoguryeoHistorian reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Blocked )
- Page
- South Korea–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- GoguryeoHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user simply deletes a whole passage, which is relevant to the article, as can be seen in similar articles, and then continues to threaten me and accuse me who reinstates the sourced content of "pushing POV and vandalising". Many unrightful threats have also been issued by him in the edit summaries. My edit-warring warning on his talkpage was simply deleted and then copied into my own talkpage by him. Akocsg (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- At first i have started a disccusion, second i said you that the source does not mentione your claims, third, you use non reliable sources(turkish newspapers..). Again, this has nothing to do with modern relations between s.korea and turkey. Also the source does not support your claim at all. You broke the 3th rever rule, you are not willing to discuss but you claim to be right. You was already many times blocked, and you are blocked on "de.wikipedia" aswell. You was already involved in many other edit-wars and you was currently warned by an administrator because of distruptive edits. Stop it. --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The user above apparently is turning out to be a sockpuppet user and ethno-POV account on a mission. Some other users already observed the same and reported him here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/213.162.72.246 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian
Regards Akocsg (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
User:2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Semi)
- Page
- 1066 Granada massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2405:205:220F:87E:0:0:174D:D0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806129676 by Operator873 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 22:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Unsourced edits */ new section"
- Comments:
Previous reverts at [20]. Warned at [21] agtx 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Unsourced changes and 3RR violation by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
124.106.252.87
He keeps changing the images in 1993, removing Pat Nixon’s image for no reason, he keeps changing people’s nationalities from the U.K. (e.g. English to British), Russian to Soviet (stop doing that from a previous IP with the same 124.106.xxx.xxx behaviour from articles before 1991.). Please help. Gar (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Joe V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Montego Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Joe V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "talk page open if you wish"
- 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "notoriety established"
- 06:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Notability established. One person is an Actress in Indonesia with a wiki Page and the other is a notable individual who meets requirement of notability."
- 05:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "External articles were provided establishing the individuals notability as per the guidelines of Wikipedia."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 05:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "ew notice" 1st EW notice
- 05:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Montego Bay"
- 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ reply"
- 06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Montego Bay." 2nd EW notice
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Discussions were had on User talk:Joe V
- Comments:
- Edit warring by Joe V also on
- Mandeville, Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Order of Distinction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Byway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that 3RR was also reached by Joe V at Mandeville, Jamaica. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Brownlife reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: Both warned)
- Page
- Tanya Plibersek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Brownlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "stop edit warring. it was already in article. You deleted it. i disagreed and restored it. Now take it talk if you so please"
- 08:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "It was already in the article. You deleted it. We can *talk* if you want. But do not keep edit warring."
- 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805918552 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) stop edit warring."
- 21:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805590769 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tanya Plibersek. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
N/a – Brownlife has refused to provide a reason for their edits and incorrectly claims the onus is on me to get consensus for the undiscussed changes.
- Comments:
Brownlife wants to add Tanya Plibersek's husband to her article's lead, despite him already being mentioned in the infobox and in her "personal life" section. I have told them several times that this is non-standard, and pointed out that no other similar articles mention the subject's spouse so prominently. They have been edit-warring from the get-go, including after being given a warning, and have provided zero reasons for why the standard should be broken in this case. They are now blatantly lying about having added the content in the first place. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please don;t accuse me of "blatant lying" I take that as an attack. The truth is that he edit was in article since February 2017 and unchallenged for 8 months.[22] Iver came to Wikipedia a few weeks ago and felt they might delete it. I disagreed and reverted once. Asked them to instead take it to the 'talk page' and we could discuss it in a civil way if they so please. They didn't and instead kept reverting and tried edit warring their preferred version into the article without talking about it on the talk page first to get consensus for their desired edit That's about all their is to it. I have not reverted again but it seems they have again reverted 3 times in 10 hours to try and game the system. They crossed the 3 revert line in doing so. The lead is a summary of the main points in the article itself Ivar, that's the way leads work.Brownlife (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, you don't seem to understand that the onus is on *you* to gain consensus for *your* addition of content. You don't get to add whatever you want into articles and then wildly revert anyone who challenges it. Asking you to follow process isn't "gaming the system". You've now admitted that you were the one that made the first edit, whereas *twice* before you said "It was already in the article". If that's not blatantly lying, I don't know what is. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Brownlife is now edit-warring on a second page. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Result: User:Brownlife and User:Ivar the Boneful are both warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked, unless they have got a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)