→User:Mhhossein reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: ): declined (using responseHelper) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> |
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> |
||
== [[User:Mhhossein<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:Icewhiz]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Mhhossein<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:Icewhiz]] (Result: Declined) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2017–18 Iranian protests}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2017–18 Iranian protests}} <br /> |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
*User:Mhhossein is constantly editwarring to add pro Iran regime stuff.--[[User:Peter Dunkan|Peter Dunkan]] ([[User talk:Peter Dunkan|talk]]) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
*User:Mhhossein is constantly editwarring to add pro Iran regime stuff.--[[User:Peter Dunkan|Peter Dunkan]] ([[User talk:Peter Dunkan|talk]]) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
**And maybe he's keeping the article from warriors like you. As you see, I've actively participated TP discussions, what you ignored. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
**And maybe he's keeping the article from warriors like you. As you see, I've actively participated TP discussions, what you ignored. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|d}} Agree with [[User:Only|only]] and reverts have cooled down. [[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> 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Dougal18]] reported by [[User:OZOO]] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) == |
== [[User:Dougal18]] reported by [[User:OZOO]] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) == |
Revision as of 16:01, 3 January 2018
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:Mhhossein reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Declined)
Page: 2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: These are multiple reverts to different parts of the article, however each one is a clear revert of content added by a different editor.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# 11:01, 1 January 2018 Stuck as self revert - my apologies on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- 12:50, 1 January 2018
- 07:47, 1 January 2018 (hid paragraph with comment tags)
- 07:21, 1 January 2018
- 07:05, 1 January 2018
- 19:08, 31 December 2017
- 15:20, 31 December 2017
- 14:50, 31 December 2017 + 14:49, 31 December 2017 (no intervening edits - so these 2 count as 1).
- 09:23, 31 December 2017 (note that in 07:47, 1 January 2018 Farah Pahlavi's response would be hidden by commenting it out).
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are multiple reverts to different subjects vs. different users. There is some talk page discussion o n some of them. I saw the editing pattern (8 different reverts) after I was reverted and I looked at the history of the article.
Comments:
Note that Mhhossein warned [2] User:Mohammad13701 against edit warring on this page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, there are several undos in here, but overall I'm seeing a good faith effort to try to work to address issues about undue weight and neutrality in a fast-evolving, very active article on a current event. I don't see an intent to edit war here. I'll leave this for other admins to review and assess as well, but I don't feel compelled to block here. only (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello friends, iranian people needs help, many users are supporting the "Akhond" and we havent any power in wikipedia :( They want to make our voice choked.. im sorry but i cant try anymore bye. Mohammad13701 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note to admin: Icewhiz were warned by multiple admins to leave me alone (I can show diffs, if required). This completely nonsense-badfaith report shows another attempt to ignore those warnings. Which of these edits are problematic? --Mhhossein talk 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note, 2 additional reverts within the 24 hr window started by diff4 above 07:05, 1 January 2018 -
- 19:57, 1 January 2018 + 20:14, 1 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content)
- 06:13, 2 January 2018 (removal of Pahlevi content) + 06:22, 2 January 2018.
Adjacent edits (including one with an intervening minor editing) combined with +. Brings to 6 reverts from 07:05, 1 January 2018, including 2 from after this report was filed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- User:Mhhossein is constantly editwarring to add pro Iran regime stuff.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Declined Agree with only and reverts have cooled down. NeilN talk to me 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Dougal18 reported by User:OZOO (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: 2018 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dougal18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [3]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [4] - removed summary section as it duplicates the info in the bracket and also has a trivial amount of detail
- [5] - /* Tournament summary */: removed section - duplicates info in the bracket. the other stuff is irrelevant and trivia
- [6] - Undid revision 818161066 by OZOO (talk)
- [7] - Undid revision 818163021 by OZOO (talk) How about you shut your ugly face?
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8] - Warning on talkpage, immediately removed by user
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] - attempt to raise dialogue on talkpage.
Comments:
I feel the personal comment in the fourth diff makes this potentially more than a AN3. OZOO (t) (c) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him. (Result: Declined)
RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Landis
A Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him.
The below information keeps being deleted within minutes of being posted. This has been noted on Twitter by prominent users as this is a very newsworthy story. Someone please help stop him.
Examples of Twitter mentions of this sockpuppet deletion: blue check verified user's tweet on this issue of a wiki-wiping by Max: https://twitter.com/Ceilidhann/status/947976857764417536 https://twitter.com/darthconnery/status/947962431191617536 https://twitter.com/holyhamills/status/947933888449523714
RE: Sexual assault allegation On December 22, 2017, Max Landis was accused of sexual abuse and sexual assault by Anna Akana on Twitter, hours before the release of the Netflix film Bright. Akana received considerable support and corroboration from fellow celebrities; among them comedian Mike Drucker, who accused Landis’ father of using his power and influence to cover up multiple indiscretions. MAD Magazine Editor Allie Goertz previously remarked that she couldn’t imagine someone who is more scared in a post-Harvey Weinstein world than Landis. No specific details of what he was accused of were released, nor have any victims come forward. [48][49][50][51][52]
He has also done the same with the page for his film Bright. See, e.g. https://twitter.com/PabloBeal/status/945571613751123969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Declined BLP concerns. NeilN talk to me 05:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Genesyz reported by User:EEng (Result: )
- Page
- 209 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Genesyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Repaired"
- 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */(1) These are facts. You do not have to find them interesting in order for other people to see them.
(2) Unlike the 209 + 0 = 209 example, these representations have pattern/structure. (3) Mind your manners, please. (4) This is a c..."
- 04:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */These are facts."
- 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Still a fact. Significance is subjective. Deleting it because you do not find it interesting discounts anyone else who might, and that is a form of chauvinism and censorship inappropriate for this medium. Unless there is an objectiv..."
- 23:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Restored deleted facts. Attempted to match formatting style, but formatting might benefit from assistance from someone more experienced. Removed bias."
- 23:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts. Formatting may benefit from improvement by someone with more experience. Thanks."
- 21:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that were deleted again by misguided editor who used personal disinterest as reason for removing facts."
- 21:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* In mathematics */Returned facts that had been removed as "uninteresting" by the previous editor."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor has restored same unsourced content a zillion times against removals by multiple editors. Warned on his talk page. EEng 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's been 31+ hours. If Genesyz hadn't still been reverting, this should be closed as stale. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:105.235.159.16 reported by User:Mar11 (Result: )
- Page
- Template:Politics of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 105.235.159.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818074381 by Mar11 (talk) other templates don't have them. they are not followed in practice. explain yourself on the talk page"
- Consecutive edits made from 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) to 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 817958343 by Mar11 (talk) revert trolling and vandalism by a wikipedia editor"
- 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "these four so-called principles are so irrelevant that adding them is nothing but ridiculous"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
bad faith edit war and not willing to discuss on talk page. Mar11 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Bad faith? Wow, this editor is nothing but a single purpose account promoting Pakistani nationalism. I don't think I violated the 3RR rule of Wikipedia. But alas, you have so many corrupt editors who love to game the system.--105.235.159.16 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: )
Page: Earth 2 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)#Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order
Comments:
User originally edited the episode list to go against standard practice, which is to list episodes in the order in which they were broadcast (aired). This is not written in the manual of style, but as AussieLegend pointed out, some things are just common sense that they've become widely accepted editing practices. Also, per WP:CREEP, not every single thing should be there—again, it just comes down to common sense. Despite that, this user keeps insisting that ordering the episode list by airing order is not in manual of style, so he doesn't have to follow it and continues to edit war to push their agenda despite consensus clearly being against them on the article's talk page. They're also making absurd claims that ordering it by air date violates policies like WP:SYNTH. They're simply refusing to drop the stick and let it go and accept how things work here. Taking a look at their block log reveals that they have quite the extensive block log, with almost all of the blocks related to edit warring. There are even some Arbitration Committee enforced ones. While their last block was all the way back on August 12, 2014, they clearly haven't learned their lesson. At this point, they're just being disruptive as they also left both me and Geraldo Perez inappropriate warnings. I reverted mine, but Geraldo decided to respond to his, and then this user decided to keep pressing on to the point that it was bordering on harassment. I'll be inviting the users who have participated in the talk page discussion as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Amaury and the others he mentions seem to want to let some unwritten "standard practice" override what is contained in the references used in this article. My edits were done to conform to WP:V and to eliminate WP:SYNTH. These are VERY written policies, of the highest order as opposed to Amaury's assertion of some unwritten standard practice. Most of expanded arguments and sources I've provided are on the talk page of that article, and I had already listed this situation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Episode order for television series Earth 2. I'm making every effort to find a consensus resolution to this, but simply put, we can't allow information which fails verification to remain. I'll note that on his user page, User:Amaury lists many of these same editors as "colleagues", and this feels a bit like a dogpile. I don't understand the aggressive vehemence they're expressing here, trying to push some unwritten "standard". I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard. I stand by every revert, though, because each revert was to conform to the sources. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (added: Would Amaury please explain the link he used for "Previous version reverted to:"? I've never reverted to that revision. I made brand new edits to the page to change the episode order) -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since the talk page discussion pretty much has everything we've said thus far, all I'll say is that they don't seem to appear to have a firm grasp on what WP:VERIFY exactly means and think that every little thing needs to be a guideline or policy. Also,
I had already self-limited my reverts to one per day, which I was hoping would be enough time for outside editors to come from the noticeboard.
That's what's called gaming the system, which is frowned upon here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)- Not my intent to game it at all, as I said, I wanted more people to participate from the noticeboard, and also slowing down things gave more time to discuss the wP:V problems and for you to provide any new references. WP:UNSOURCED is pretty understandable. If a fact (such as episode numbers) is not sourced, it can/must be removed. I found sources for those episode numbers, but you seem to want to "create" episode numbers just based on your interpretation of airdates. That's WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't excuse your edit warring when WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. That's why it's called gaming the system. You don't have to actually break WP:3RR to actually edit war. And we've been over this. Listing episodes by air date is not WP:SYNTH as 1) it's standard practice and 2) it's well-sourced in the episode guides. However, I'm not going to repeat myself. It's all on the talk page, and reviewing editors, including admins, can see all that's been discussed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, no – a source was already provided for you that verifies the airdates, and therefore the episode numbers: [17]. Here's another that's provided in the 'External links' section: [18]. Secondly, none of that absolves you from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Thirdly, you are also ignoring that the consensus is against you at the Talk page of the article in question – nobody else agrees with your interpretation of WP:V here: sources do exist that verify it all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- http://www.epguides.com/Earth2/ is sourced from TVMaze and TV.com - both of those sites are user-editable and are not reliable sources. TVguide.com is not a source used in the article - that source has its own problems including that it splits the pilot into two episodes. On the talk page I also give at least 7 sources which go against TV guide.com, and indeed the current source used for airdates (bellaonline) ALSO uses a narrative episode order which conflicts with your preferred version. Simply put, preferring TVguide over several other sources goes against WP:V. You're only picking tvguide because it matches you preference - not because you've evaluated all sources fairly and weighed them. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I got notice about this discussion, about which I plead ignorance. Beyond what I said on the involved talk page, I can't offer intelligent comment. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I entered the discussion at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) after IJBall posted a notice about it at WT:TV. It's fairly obvious that Netoholic is in conflict with other editors and that consensus is generally against him. Diffs 1, 2 & 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 3 is an attempt to insert content that doesn't have the support of other editors. He has been around long enough to know better than to edit-war and there have been enough calls for him not to in edit summaries and on the talk page in addition to the warning on his own talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I got notice about this discussion, about which I plead ignorance. Beyond what I said on the involved talk page, I can't offer intelligent comment. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- http://www.epguides.com/Earth2/ is sourced from TVMaze and TV.com - both of those sites are user-editable and are not reliable sources. TVguide.com is not a source used in the article - that source has its own problems including that it splits the pilot into two episodes. On the talk page I also give at least 7 sources which go against TV guide.com, and indeed the current source used for airdates (bellaonline) ALSO uses a narrative episode order which conflicts with your preferred version. Simply put, preferring TVguide over several other sources goes against WP:V. You're only picking tvguide because it matches you preference - not because you've evaluated all sources fairly and weighed them. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not my intent to game it at all, as I said, I wanted more people to participate from the noticeboard, and also slowing down things gave more time to discuss the wP:V problems and for you to provide any new references. WP:UNSOURCED is pretty understandable. If a fact (such as episode numbers) is not sourced, it can/must be removed. I found sources for those episode numbers, but you seem to want to "create" episode numbers just based on your interpretation of airdates. That's WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since the talk page discussion pretty much has everything we've said thus far, all I'll say is that they don't seem to appear to have a firm grasp on what WP:VERIFY exactly means and think that every little thing needs to be a guideline or policy. Also,
User:97.122.170.20 reported by User:LitRPGbooks (Result: )
Page: LitRPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.122.170.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LitRPG&oldid=817990948
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [19] 06:27 1 January 2018
- [20] 20:46 1 January 2018
- [21] 03:33 2 January 2018
- [22] 05:15 2 January 2018
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.122.170.20 [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LitRPG#97.122.170.20_Can_we_please_talk_civilly? [diff]
Comments:
sorry if this is messy or sparse, I'm sort of new here... fiddles with hands... LitRPGbooks (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have fixed the heading for you. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
recently switched IP to User:2600:100E:B040:CE06:FC9F:55C9:5BF3:B7B6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LitRPGbooks (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Stale)
- Page
- 2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Peter Dunkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818212546 by Sa.vakilian (talk) so gain consensus before removing it"
- 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818212319 by Sa.vakilian (talk) you discuss since you first removed it"
- 07:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "restored lede removed without consensus"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 07:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "dont't edit war on 2017–18 Iranian protests"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#The lead
- Comments:
Shameless bad-faith report by User:Mhhossein, constant editwarrior (see report against him above). I stopped editwarring long ago, and this so-called dispute long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also I immediately stopped "editwarring" after getting warning. I did not revert same editor more than twice.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, posted long after dispute already settled. Actually it was posted for suggestion, not as "Attempt to resolve dispute."--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I only reverted 3 times (once restored old version, then twice reverted one editor). When I was reverted again, I did not continue "edit war".--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I told on the talk page, only one sentence of the lead is written by me, but I want to protect the others' attempts. It is supposed that the main version is the stable one. The person who wants to revert the work of many other editors should explain his/her ideas on the talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I only reverted 3 times (once restored old version, then twice reverted one editor). When I was reverted again, I did not continue "edit war".--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The version I reverted to, version from yesterday, was also the work of many editors. But I'm nolonger "editwarring" for it or anything. The issue is already long settled.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Stale It looks like things have cooled down. NeilN talk to me 15:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Tedster007 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: )
Page: Liverpool Street station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) London Paddington station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and London King's Cross railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedster007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Comments:
Slow-burning edit war; user repeatedly adding information proven to be factually incorrect after incorrectly parsing the sources, no edit summaries, no communication. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"Slow-burning edit war"? I just corrected it and provided a bona fide reference. What is your problem? Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- While King's Cross has come a long way since the days of run-down tackiness, drug pushing and prostitution, I find it hard to believe it would rank with Rannoch railway station and Berwyn railway station as one of the best British railway stations of all time. I cannot see any claim that is the case in either source given. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Editors need to be aware of WP:3RR and edit warring before being reported here. I can't see where Tedster007 was advised of our policy. --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since you don't know how to write articles NeilN, you won't understand this, but if somebody adds something to an article you took to Good Topic status, and you don't think it's correct, and the user won't communicate in any other way (and when they finally do, tell you to "get a life"), what other options have we got left? I don't give two hoots on red-tape, is the article correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Aren't you part of WP:RETENTION? The "get a life" comment was made here, after you unceremoniously reported them instead of warning them on their talk page or going the extra mile and having an initial chat on their talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- See, if you knew anything about the article, or could read it, or look up sources, you would be able to resolve this dispute. That's why I wrote User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. I'm sorting it out on the talk page myself, now run along and block a FA contributor for incivility or whatever you claim to be good at around here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- LOL. I think you're mistaken about exactly who blocks FA contributors. [34] --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- See, if you knew anything about the article, or could read it, or look up sources, you would be able to resolve this dispute. That's why I wrote User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. I'm sorting it out on the talk page myself, now run along and block a FA contributor for incivility or whatever you claim to be good at around here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Aren't you part of WP:RETENTION? The "get a life" comment was made here, after you unceremoniously reported them instead of warning them on their talk page or going the extra mile and having an initial chat on their talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Since you don't know how to write articles NeilN, you won't understand this, but if somebody adds something to an article you took to Good Topic status, and you don't think it's correct, and the user won't communicate in any other way (and when they finally do, tell you to "get a life"), what other options have we got left? I don't give two hoots on red-tape, is the article correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Editors need to be aware of WP:3RR and edit warring before being reported here. I can't see where Tedster007 was advised of our policy. --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)
Page: Royal Rumble (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OfficiallyGoodenough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#John Cena
Comments:
This user continued to make reverts after I issued the warning, in addition he has not participated in the talk page discussion whatsoever. Furthermore he clearly understands how this works because he warned the another user here [44] on the same topic. The other user took the initiative to also bring the topic to the wikiproject after my warning rather than just reverting again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#John Cena. Note he has reverted multiple users all attempting to make the same change. - GalatzTalk 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected I see violations of WP:3RR by multiple editors. Fully protected 2 days NeilN talk to me 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
User:JM17 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 3 days)
- Page
- Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- JM17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818328802 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - Stop edit warring and if the Identitarian movement is actually Nazbol, provide sources because there are none and this is false"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 22:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818324638 by MichiganWoodShop (talk) - GenID are not Nazbol so I don't know why people are letting this slide."
- 22:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Reverted any Nazbol vandalism. You all keep saying that I need a source to say they aren't Nazbol, when in reality there is no source to show they are Nazbol but you are letting it slide."
- Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- 20:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Someone said that this movement is Nazbol which is blatantly false and Nazbol is basically only known as a meme at this point. Removed the two Nazbol mentions."
- 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Added comma I forgot to re-add."
- 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Removed other Nazbol relating things I missed out."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 3 days 3RR is not a right. The user was clearly engaging in disruptive behavior that constituted edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:MichiganWoodShop reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- MichiganWoodShop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (after this report was filed)
- 23:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "There is 7 citations, 6 from political science journals and 1 from the Southern Poverty Law Center. You can check the sources given yourself"
- 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC) to 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- 02:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "Plenty of sources are given. Of course not every self-identified identitarian would agree with it, most notably in USA where it has become a different way of saying ethnonationalist. However, it is strongly influenced by Nazbol and Dugin"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The edits that I reverted are clear frivolous edits that are not covered undee the 3 revert rule. The user was attempting to cover up credible sources linking the identitarian movement to the NazBol movement and Dugin. The edits I made have clear sources which are accessible, and which can be viewed by staff. The intention of the editor was to keep reverting it. A similar event happened yesterday. The intention was not to edit war, but to preserve credible information from POV editors. Thank you.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment you do have reliable sources and it is clear that you would get consensus if you went looking for it on the talk page. With this in mind why don't you do just that and come out of the process with a group of regular contributors to the article who are willing to get behind your published changes, rather than undertake a solo war in which you slap it out in the edit summaries of your continued reverts. It's never a bad idea to get consensus before you make your reverts if (as is the case here) there's no BLP/defamatory/vandalism issue which needs to be immediately resolved. Edaham (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Alaney2k (Result: )
Page: Manafest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#Edit_warring
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Manafest#Placename
Comments:
Also added this deliberately misleading warning on my talk page: User_talk:Alaney2k#January_2018 Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)