CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) |
CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 415: | Line 415: | ||
139.62.81.29 16:53 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
139.62.81.29 16:53 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Holbach Girl]] reported by [[User:Capitals00]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Holbach Girl]] reported by [[User:Capitals00]] (Result: Page protected) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rob Sherman}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rob Sherman}} <br /> |
||
Line 467: | Line 467: | ||
I'm willing to do what is right here, of course, so I don't know why blocking should "be considered". If I am misunderstanding the consensus process, tell me. Just please explain what I should do differently, and I'll comply.[[User:Holbach Girl|Holbach Girl]] ([[User talk:Holbach Girl|talk]]) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
I'm willing to do what is right here, of course, so I don't know why blocking should "be considered". If I am misunderstanding the consensus process, tell me. Just please explain what I should do differently, and I'll comply.[[User:Holbach Girl|Holbach Girl]] ([[User talk:Holbach Girl|talk]]) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|pe}} Technically there is no 3RR as the edits are spaced out but it is an edit war. I reverted back to before the war (early March) and fully protected the page for a week. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:DanielThomasMason97 ]] reported by [[User:Xanzzibar]] (Result: Blocked) == |
== [[User:DanielThomasMason97 ]] reported by [[User:Xanzzibar]] (Result: Blocked) == |
Revision as of 22:23, 14 April 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:Axxxion reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- 2018 Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "but YOU are removing the sourced material."
- 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "advertisements are forbidden in Wiki"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on 2018 Douma chemical attack. (TW)"
- 17:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "/* April 2018 */ 1RR vio"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
See user's responses to a warning and a request to self-revert, at User talk:Axxxion#April 2018.
- Comments:
Violation of 1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR - MrX 🖋 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There's actually three reverts, not just two (this one is the third one). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Can we please get some admin attention on this? This editor does not seem to respect the general sanctions, and their edits suggest a strong POV in this topic area.[1][2] Pinging NeilN.- MrX 🖋 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note that User:Axxxion has returned to editing the article and has not responded to requests to either comment here or self revert his 1RR violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
François Robere reported by User:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (Result: Being discussed at ANI )
Page: Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Persistent edit warring with various editors started here [3]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see block history [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
- Please note: Edit warring conversation has been erased by François Robere from his talk page following his commentary here.[11]
Comments:
- The persistent user, pushing his version using misleading commentary and lately edit warring with various editors on the same day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (talk)
- François stopped after being warned. He is also active on the talk page. The 64-bit IP in flux has not been active on the TP (as the 64 bit IP at least) and has been making rather POVish large changes to the article. François should have minded his revert count, however he has been pushed here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- The IP editor has been making repeated disruptive edits, bordering on vandalism, without discussion and without explanation. Reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I've asked the IP editor to identify twice [12][13], eventually asking for page protection (granted) and sockpuppet investigation (under consideration). The editor seems to be trying to retaliate, rather than seeking consensus. Vandalism and disruptive editing are (or at least should be) of interest to the community; I've no intention of squabbling with the IP user, which is why I've engaged both the article editors, outside veteran editors, and WP:RPP/WP:SPI. François Robere (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
François Robere needs to realize that this attitude is going to result in another block sooner or later. If the changes are that objectionable, other editors will revert them. --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Other editors have reverted them.[14][15][16] François Robere (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
On top of the edit warring, François Robere continues to mislead with "disruptive" and "vandalism" false accusations. Please examine edit history to see that there was no disruption or vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:40E:E021:963E:F192 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Warned Being discussed at ANI. François Robere, the diffs you provided stretch back for a week and no one has reverted as much as you. You need to drop the notion that you are somehow the guardian or caretaker of disputed articles. NeilN talk to me 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- They stretch back a week because that's how long the IP editor has been around.
- I don't consider myself the "guardian" of that page. I haven't blocked a single sourced edit, as outrageous as it may be, instead tagging or asking for clarifications [17][18]; I haven't imposed my POV when my sources were found unsatisfactory, and instead opened an RFC [19]; and I haven't "warred" with any of the "usual" editors, even when they continuously reverted my edits without explanation, instead challenging them on the talk page [20][21][22]. And now, when an anonymous editor comes up and make frequent disruptive edits, and refuse to identify and discuss, and I go by community guidelines and file an RPP and an SPI, this isn't enough either. Grand. François Robere (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
User:The Replicator reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned The Replicator)
- Page
- 2017–18 UEFA Champions League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- The Replicator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) to 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- 21:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Statistics */ Update."
- 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835966475 by 37.233.25.107 (talk)"
- 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835966268 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Incorrect and he put yesterday's date. Night now I am updating correctly as UEFA.com has just updated itself."
- 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835965750 by Mijcofr (talk)"
- 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835965584 by Mijcofr (talk)"
- 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) ""
- 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC) ""
- 20:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835963946 by 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:A6 (talk)"
- 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) to 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835963183 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
- 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835963325 by EDP Sagittarius (talk)"
- 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835963069 by 217.73.129.80 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) to 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- 20:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835962903 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
- 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Revert all the bad edits."
- 20:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835962723 by 193.152.145.212 (talk)"
- 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835946482 by M. El-Shahawy (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary. (TW)"
- 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2017–18 UEFA Champions League. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I appreciate the editor's efforts, but not in this instance. Clear 3RR violation. And the edits continue as I report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And many of the reverts are without explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree as my intentions are to avoid edits that disregard sources, half-edits (such as only updating Ronaldo or Messi's number of goals) and other vandalism edits. The page in question is often blocked for IP's precisely because of this kind of clueless editing and/or vandalism. The Replicator (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- P.S.: And if the lack of edit summaries is part of the issue too, I'll do that from now on. The Replicator (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Most of those reverted edits are 'technically' live updates (matches finished but statistics have not yet been updated by UEFA itself), which WikiProject Football do not encourage. They are correct but also unsourced and unverifiable. I think Replicator did not commit 3RR here. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Centaur271188: Yes, now that I think of it, those edits are essentially as disruptive as live updates. The Replicator (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Most of those reverted edits are 'technically' live updates (matches finished but statistics have not yet been updated by UEFA itself), which WikiProject Football do not encourage. They are correct but also unsourced and unverifiable. I think Replicator did not commit 3RR here. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Warned The Replicator, live updates, while discouraged, are not vandalism. Reverts for said updates are not exempt from WP:3RR. If anon editors persist in adding updates then ask for page protection. NeilN talk to me 14:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Okay, I have followed your advice and I will do my best efforts to not get involved again in edit-warring. The Replicator (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- All's well that ends well. Thanks all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @The Replicator: One further note, I'm usually available when the tournaments are happening. Feel free to ping me and if I'm watching, I can help. I'm not an admin, but it will avoid possible admin action against you (or others). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: Okay, thank you for your offer. It's surely welcome. I'll take that into account. The Replicator (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @The Replicator: One further note, I'm usually available when the tournaments are happening. Feel free to ping me and if I'm watching, I can help. I'm not an admin, but it will avoid possible admin action against you (or others). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- All's well that ends well. Thanks all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Lysimachi reported by User:TaerkastUA (Result: No action)
Page: Academia Sinica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lysimachi (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: [27] and [28]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
User being reported was advised to take the issue to the talk page, has not done so. Edit warring and previous warnings with this user has not had an effect on them Tærkast (Discuss) 11:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- TaerkastUA, you and Lysimachi seem to be equally guilty of edit warring. Is there any reason why you can't start the talk page discussion? --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am aware of that yes, however, the behaviour on their part I believe has been ignoring discussion, and I certainly don't see a discussion on the talk page being any more productive. Having said that, I just want to leave this alone now, it's not worth fighting over. Leave their edit be. I don't want to get into this any further. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: No action. The editor who filed this complaint, User:TaerkastUA, is withdrawing from the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Apo33 reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Aksai Chin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Apo33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33][34]
Comments:
- No plans of reverting him again since any other editor surely will but his editing pattern and rejection of the reasons behind reversion of his edits is apparent. Let's see how he will respond to this complaint. Capitals00 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:73.34.105.30 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 48 hour block)
- Page
- The Grand Tour (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 73.34.105.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836003261 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 02:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836002254 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835994683 by Cæsey (talk) I have laid out my well-founded claims right here, so what is there to discuss?"
- 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC) "Either way, the 2nd citation is not a credible source. Also, it is completely funded by an American company. It is therefore at least a British-American co-production."
- 01:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 835985839 by Davey2010 (talk) Again, neither of those is direct confirmation that it is solely a British production, or even a British production AT ALL. The Twitter one as a citation is laughable."
- 23:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC) "The first citation contained nothing that said that it was a U.K. production, only that it was U.K. based. The 2nd citation was a joke response in a twitter exchange. That is hardly a reliable source of info. At the very least, it is a co production between the U.K. and the U.S. since the production/distribution company is American."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked for both edit-warring and personal attacks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Banned from editing article for one month.)
Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EtienneDolet (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:
This is a long term problem. This was previous restored here: [36] and several other times:
- [37] tag teaming by Khiruig here, reverted by Needbrains here [38]
A talk page discussion was started by User:EtienneDolet on March 28th. Two editors Beshogur and myself objected to the content and gave numerous policy based reasons, including misrepresentation of the WP:RS. Etienne's final talk page comment was made on 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC).
Etienne restored the disputed edit after opening the talk page discussion at 16:28, and then when it was not reverted, stopped responding to talk page discussions.
The last comment on talk was made by me on March 29th — I waited for a reply and then removed the content here on April 3 based on the fact that two editors had disputed the edit and Etienne had stopped responding to talk page discussions. Etienne accused me of disruption
and restored the edit at 20:10, April 3, 2018], without additional comment on the talk discussion. I requested that Etienne self-revert and issued a warning for personal attacks/ABF on usertalk here [Etienne removed the edit summary] and said that WP:ONUS did not require him to justify inclusion, even though two editors had disputed the edit on policy ground on the article talk page.
I waited to see if there would be any further developments on the article talk page. When there were not I once again attempted to remove the edit on 17:11, April 12, 2018] which Etienne reverted within 15 minutes [39] saying in her edit summary "non-responsive"? There's a discussion about this on the TP.
- which no one has responded to since my last comment on March 29th, and the only two editors who commented besides Etienne have supported removal.
I issued an edit warring warning here [40] which Etienne removed from talk with edit summary one revert is not "edit-warring"...if that were the case, you'd have to warn yourself as well...
- I am filing this complaint based on WP:GAME and Etienne continuing to revert without engaging in discussion while "his" version is in the article over the objections of two editors (And a third who reverted Khiruig's tag teaming).
Seraphim System (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin#Deutsche_Welle
Comments:
- Working on an article ban. --NeilN talk to me 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's some poor writing, inserting that sentence. Note also the (borderline?) personal attack by Khirurg in the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note Banned from editing article for one month. NeilN talk to me 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:BestHealthGuide reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- BestHealthGuide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ Now added on request, further sources and references to my "minority view" in the moment ... which is in world view, I etstimate majority in the long run"
- 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ ... alle your contra-arguments are referenced to wikipedia entries, were you can find the evidence. Please read first. What is you motive to challenge Wikipedia itself, and call it a "non-source"?"
- 11:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ Now were able to add source again, please note"
- 11:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "Reverted: How can you judge that it is "only opinion" and a "ridicolous claim" . This is no argument, that is ill judgement. Please present facts."
- 11:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ There was no reason given to remove my small passage. It is well referenced. This is a editorial war, why are you doing dear co-editors. Do not like other views to be known?"
- 09:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ This is neither twitter nor a source without transcript. So there is no reason to remove it. You do not like other views, i´snt it?"
- 09:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack */ Rearanged the two arguments of my contribution, that it is clear they are independent from each other"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:3RR */ 1RR"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 11:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* NPOV claim */ new section"
- Comments:
BestHealthGuide is just a skosh over 1RR (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR). This may be a new record.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is way over due for semi-protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
MrX beat me to my own report. I just warned BestHealthGuide on their talk page about 3RR, and few minutes later - they restored the content they keep trying to insert into the article. Thus account is not engaging in talk discussion, just adding the same, poorly sourced facts (fake news...) to the article. Considering the disruptive attitude and spreading of fake news, I'd suggest that the admin reviewing this errs on the 'longer ban length' choice. PS. Semiprot is a good idea, but won't help here, this account is not new. (Through I wouldn't be surprised to learn it is a sock of some kind). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the blatant POV pushing [42][43] a topic ban would be a good option to consider.- MrX 🖋 13:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- And he continues to re-insert the content, in a slightly different form, even after being reported here[44].- MrX 🖋 13:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 14:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Someone963852 reported by User:DynaGirl (Result: Warned)
Page: Millennials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Someone963852 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [45]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]. After alerting User:Someone963852 that they had violated 3RR, having already made 6 reverts in 24hours, User:Someone963852 made a 7th revert [54].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]
Comments:
User:Nathan.T.Medina has also appeared to have recently violated 3RR on the page, but appears to be a relatively new user who has not made any additional reverts since being alerted on talk page regarding 3RR, while User:Someone963852 immediately reverted again after being alerted they've already violated 3RR. User:Someone963852 also has history of lengthy blocks for edit warring and talk page shows other editors have raised concerns regarding this user abusing multiple accounts. DynaGirl (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)}}
- Note that the reported user is also edit warring on the Generation Z page, reverts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
- Scr★pIronIV 12:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I explained on the talk page Talk:Millennials#Cut_down_the_Date_range_section?, Talk:Millennials#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_12_April_2018 and [56] on why the changes were made and why unreliable sources were removed. How is a consensus reached when no one responds and the only reason they give is in the edit summary with something as vague as "return to consensus"? I'll stop reverting, since the article is owned by a few editors who don't want to see changes made and no one wants to update it to reflect current research data because it is contrary to their beliefs. Hopefully third party opinions came chime in on the article. But discuss on the talk page on why my edits were reverted, because I did use the talk pages and explained my reasons clearly on there. Also, no one raised concerns about me abusing multiple accounts. The one using the socks is this user here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116/Archive, but that's irrelevant to this. Someone963852 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- On the topic of abusing multiple accounts, the section you link: Talk:Millennials#Cut_down_the_Date_range_section?, in support of your editing, was started by User:73.52.114.170, who shares similar editing history (and geolocates to same city) as IP socks of indefinitely blocked User:Phil A. Fry [57] --DynaGirl (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I explained on the talk page Talk:Millennials#Cut_down_the_Date_range_section?, Talk:Millennials#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_12_April_2018 and [56] on why the changes were made and why unreliable sources were removed. How is a consensus reached when no one responds and the only reason they give is in the edit summary with something as vague as "return to consensus"? I'll stop reverting, since the article is owned by a few editors who don't want to see changes made and no one wants to update it to reflect current research data because it is contrary to their beliefs. Hopefully third party opinions came chime in on the article. But discuss on the talk page on why my edits were reverted, because I did use the talk pages and explained my reasons clearly on there. Also, no one raised concerns about me abusing multiple accounts. The one using the socks is this user here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latitude0116/Archive, but that's irrelevant to this. Someone963852 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone963852, you just made another revert to Millennials (your 8th revert in 24 hours) after just stating above that you would stop reverting. Per WP:3RR, this [58] is a revert because User:ScrapIronIV recently reverted to status quo reversing your edits placing prominence on the Pew Research source, and returned the Pew Research source to date order sequence. I'm not going to revert you, even though moving and expanding this is could be argued as undue weight. I'm just surprised to see you reverting again (for the 8th time in 24 hours) after just saying above you would stop reverting. Also, your claims above that no one has engaged at all or said anything beyond "return to consensus" in edit summary is simply not true. Multiple editors have engaged with you and/or discussed your edits on the article talk page including myself, User:Aboutbo2000 and User:Nathan.T.Medina. I really think it would be helpful if you could step away and stop aggressively reverting and wait for additional participation on article talk page. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That was not a revert. The lead didn't change, nothing was removed, everything was what it is before. The only thing I did was expand on a source that was already in the article [59] [60]. But it seems like a bunch of editors (User:DynaGirl, User:Aboutbo2000, User:Nathan.T.Medina) are pushing a non-neutral POV as seen from their edit histories. Most recently, particularly from these edits: [61], [62][63] when trying to expand on an in-depth, reliable source. I'm trying to start a discussion on the talk page and the user talk pages, but no one is continuing to participate and only wants to revert the changes back with vague edit summaries. A POV noticeboard has been started over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Millennials to seek neutral third-party opinions. Someone963852 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Someone963852, you had previously expanded that source as part of another edit, someone reverted you, then you expanded it again. Please read WP:3RR. That counts as a revert. Since then you have also apparently deleted content User:Aboutbo2000 added about Pew Research dates prior to March 2018 [64]. That’s another revert. Can you please start limiting yourself to 3RR per 24 hours?--DynaGirl (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The edit that included the expansion was reverted by another user mainly because they wanted the unreliable, deleted sources back in the article and the lead back to the way it was, and reverting to that page included also removing the expansion since that's the easiest route to revert. But now that I'm not reverting the lead and unable to remove the unreliable sources, the only change I'm making to the article is adding details to the Pews Research Center source because it is the most reliable, up-to-date, and in-depth source that actually researched the date ranges and gave reasons why they chose the dates they did. The fact that the users above [65], [66][67] tried to trim it down, remove it, or add unnecessary disclaimer-like lines to the source is POV pushing. Someone963852 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- User:Someone963852 has previously been blocked as long as one month for edit warring. Unless they promise to take a break from the article I think another block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take a break from the article, but could someone make sure that POV pushing edits like these [68] [69][70] which tried to trim down or add unneccessary disclaimer-like lines to the most reliable source in that section won't happen again? Because once I can't revert on the break, the users I mentioned above or others might try to revert it all back. Someone963852 (talk)
- Someone963852, I don't think you understand the concept of edit warring. If we can't count on your behaving better in the future, I think a one-month block should still be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I promise I'll take a break from the article and edit-war less in the future. Someone963852 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Someone963852, I don't think you understand the concept of edit warring. If we can't count on your behaving better in the future, I think a one-month block should still be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take a break from the article, but could someone make sure that POV pushing edits like these [68] [69][70] which tried to trim down or add unneccessary disclaimer-like lines to the most reliable source in that section won't happen again? Because once I can't revert on the break, the users I mentioned above or others might try to revert it all back. Someone963852 (talk)
- User:Someone963852 has previously been blocked as long as one month for edit warring. Unless they promise to take a break from the article I think another block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The edit that included the expansion was reverted by another user mainly because they wanted the unreliable, deleted sources back in the article and the lead back to the way it was, and reverting to that page included also removing the expansion since that's the easiest route to revert. But now that I'm not reverting the lead and unable to remove the unreliable sources, the only change I'm making to the article is adding details to the Pews Research Center source because it is the most reliable, up-to-date, and in-depth source that actually researched the date ranges and gave reasons why they chose the dates they did. The fact that the users above [65], [66][67] tried to trim it down, remove it, or add unnecessary disclaimer-like lines to the source is POV pushing. Someone963852 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: User:Someone963852 is warned that resumption of edit warring on any article runs the risk of a one-month block, since this was the last penalty. The wisest course is to make no edit at either Millennials or Generation Z unless you have already obtained a talk page consensus for that change. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Someone963852, you had previously expanded that source as part of another edit, someone reverted you, then you expanded it again. Please read WP:3RR. That counts as a revert. Since then you have also apparently deleted content User:Aboutbo2000 added about Pew Research dates prior to March 2018 [64]. That’s another revert. Can you please start limiting yourself to 3RR per 24 hours?--DynaGirl (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Chris Evert's Grand Slam History (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Please review this article and the edit war that has been instigated by Fyunck(click) and now being pursued by Septrillion. This article is a hagiography written by a fan of the player and is a unique entry into the entire wikipedia space. No other tennis player has any such article related to them on the site, least of all written as a fan adoration page by an acolyte. Fyunck(click) has stated that the page should exist because the subject is one of the greatest players of all time. So where are the corresponding pages for Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Billie Jean King, Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver and on and on and on? There are no such pages for any of these players. A page already exists entitled "Chris Evert's Career Statistics, that covers all of the same information, only in a neutral form, without the gushing adoration used in the article. I have suggested the article be reviewed for deletion, yet Fyunck(click) continually removes the request without contributing their argument. Septrillion is now supporting them and between them they are in excess of the 3RR rule. Fyunck(click) keeps posting abuse on my talk page without constructively responding to the matter in hand. 93.35.84.103 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. NeilN talk to me 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Reporter was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. FYI ping for Fyunck(click) and Septrillion. --NeilN talk to me 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: )
Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: London Hall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:16, 23 March 2018
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Attempt to clean up and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#NPOV and Weasel words. Note that London Hall's proposed removal of content was not approved in the RfC request (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC request as this is becoming a bit comical)
Comments:
Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334#User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection), that was ruled out by EdJohnston: Due to concern about possible socking, I've placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year. Several new accounts with no other interests and good knowledge of Wikipedia have sprung up to defend the group that is the subject of the article. This seems like too much of a coincidence.
A sockpuppet case is also awaiting a behavioural investigation. Pahlevun (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is laughable. Pahlevun has monopolized the page People's Mujahedin of Iran and won't let any one else work on it. He has already reported a SPI against me, and since that didn't work, he's now trying here. I've started seeking external help about this matter, so this noticeboard may be as good a place as any. I would suggest someone please look at People's Mujahedin of Iran: the page has a long history of COI editing and attack editing (the attack editing has prevailed for the most part). I propose that the page is reverted to an earlier version, before most of the COI editors became heavily involved on the page. I would also suggest someone place a protection on the page to prevent further vandalism. London Hall (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:112.211.219.230 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: Semi)
Page: Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.211.219.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [[72]]
Diffs of the user's reverts: (technically he is at 5rr)
- [[73]] -- reverting me on incredibly trivial points, such as my attribution of a map to the author Kitsikis whose ideas were reflected on it [[74]] (he claims this needed citation but it says as much in the map description that it is a projection of the concept of Intermediate Region theory whose progenitor is indeed Dimitri Kitsikis)
- [[75]] -- reverting both myself and another IP.
- [[76]]
- [[77]] -- reverting another IP
- [[78]] -- this is also not me being reverted
Note also that during previous days there was a continuous string of reverts by this IP (examples, certainly not exhaustive: [[79]][[80]]), as well accusing others of "agendas" [[81]] -- and it is totally mysterious what sort of "agenda" it reflects to merely say Athena was Zeus' daughter.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[82]]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[83]]
Frankly, my attempts to reason with this guy have been disappointing, to say the very least. The subject of our dispute falls could honestly be added to the Hall of WP:LAME. I read this article and found a few things that needed fixing -- for example, that Kitsikis' map needed attribution (and he reverted this, inexplicably; two, there is no need for clutter of the Proto-Germanic etymology of the word "West" since hte page is not about the cardinal direction but rather a geopolitical concept that would have meant utterly nothing to the actual speakers of Proto-Germanic (also reverted by the IP, with some pretty flimsy reasoning and then calling this argument "vapid"). To this logic, he accused me of a double standard and being "illusory" with the word "Occident" whose etymology I had left on the page-- but this is a bit of a ridiculous comparison, as Occident is not a commonly used term in everyday speech and many people might not know what it means (unlike "West") so its etymology is helpful for that reason. Ironically he regularly accuses others of edit-warring, yet it is him doing the majority of reverting, in fact during the period above, he reverted every other editor to the article. I tried to reason with him on his talk page as well, but that was a load of disappointment as well, topped off with his assertion that 3RR is "not a core policy", allegedly because of WP:IAR (that's his argument) [[84]]. Overall, he reverts everyone and then accuses them of edit-warring and demands they use the talk page, but when they do he accuses them of "agendas" and doesn't commit to real discussion, and the points he's reverting often are as lame as can be.
If he wishes to contribute constructively to an online encyclopedia, this should not be done by knee-jerk reverting others. Softer methods have not worked because and he says "3RR" is "not a core policy" ([85]), I believe it is necessary to teach him he is quite wrong about that the hard way, with a block.
Furthermore, the page Western world right now is a cesspool of POV-edit warring not only by this guy, but also by another IP, and both of them seem not to get the memo that page is not about telling the reader what the "Western world" is, but should be about discussing the various different ways the term may be used (i.e. Greco-Romanity, European Christendom, the democratic world, the capitalist world, the developed world, the liberal world, et cetera -- all of these are different but overlapping entities).--Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by multiple IPs who are not waiting for consensus on the talk page. Consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Gargaroi reported by User:Filiprino (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page: Societat Civil Catalana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gargaroi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] [97]
Comments:
User is still editing the article removing information sources and adding text written as an advertisement like in this diff. Paragraph starting with According to its website, Societat Civil Catalana, the founding objectives of the organisation are. Some of those revisions might not count as a full edit because they represent small changes. But the first ones removed entire sections of the article which I had to revert. Because of those removals I think he did commit vandalism and as a particular case edit warring afterwards. I have put three warnings for vandalism in his talk page but the user did not respond. Later on the user kept those sections and sources after reverting his deletions but he kept changing phrases, edits which I reverted too. Of special relevance are the changes regarding Somatemps characterisation. Their members are known for making neo-Nazi propaganda and organizing negationist events. In fact, that information appears in the section "Far-right relations..." (renamed to "Alleged far-right relations..." by Gargaroi). But he changed the wording from "far-right" to "Somatemps, which some regard as a far-right organization". Another single purpose user tried to push contents to the page, User:BarceloniUK, but his article drafts were rejected (User talk:BarceloniUK) because they where written like an advertisement. Maybe Gargaroi and BarceloniUK are sockpuppets. He did not write anything in the talk page, not until I first added the section "Vandalism". Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:139.62.81.29 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )
- Page
- Stone Temple Pilots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 139.62.81.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836336594 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You were the one that caused this edit war in the first place."
- 04:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836336281 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are not making any sense."
- Consecutive edits made from 04:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC) to 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 04:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836335810 by Walter Görlitz (talk) It is obvious that he is not singing bass. A reader could easily tell that the bass in this context is an instrument and not a singing range."
- 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836334466 by Binksternet (talk) Scott, Dean, Robert, and Eric all joined at the same time. Seniority at this point doesn't matter."
- 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836159043 by Binksternet (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stone Temple Pilots. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The editor is a long-term abuser from University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Other recent accounts:
- 139.62.85.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - part of a previous 3RR report
- 139.62.82.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 139.62.86.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 139.62.34.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Would like to hear from @Binksternet: as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry for any trouble that I might have caused. I had no knowledge of the 3RR until a moment ago, and thought that everything was alright until now. I was switching "bass guitar" to "bass" because a guitar and a bass are different instruments, and did not want readers to be confused. I have no intentions to cause edit wars. I just wanted to make the articles that I was on as accurate and straightforward as much as I could. I only wanted to help contribute to Wikipedia, and make it a better place. I have no ill will towards any other user, and always think of the disagreements as mere misunderstandings. I also had no idea that I was using more than one account. I thought that the 139.something was just one account. Please forgive me for any problems that I have inadvertently caused.
139.62.81.29 05:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.81.29 (talk)
- This person from Jacksonville, Florida, with IPs in the range Special:Contributions/139.62.85.40/18, has performed several thousand edits to music articles starting in June 2016 (as far as I can tell). Some of the edits are okay, others constitute edit warring.[98][99][100] None are referenced – this person never shares the source of information. Another of the areas of past conflict has been the Staind article, where our Florida friend puts the band in past tense, against consensus.[101][102][103][104] Our Florida friend took part in discussion at Talk:Staind#Staind_is_a_band/was_a_band, and he subsequently stopped the edit warring. I would like to see this person start to WP:CITE sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I promise to start citing sources when I can, and to be careful not to start edit wars. I just looked at the long term abuse full cases. I DO NOT want to end up like that.
139.62.81.29 16:53 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Holbach Girl reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Rob Sherman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holbach Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [105]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [106]
- [107] copied edit summary of the opposing editor's revert[108]
- [109]
- [110]
- [111]
- [112] 6 April
- [113] 8 April
- [114] 12 April
- [115] 12 April
- [116] 14 April
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]
Comments:
Already warned of edit warring and notified about post-1932 American politics.[119] Still engaging in disruption and attempting to game WP:3RR Capitals00 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just for more context: Disruptive editing has been occurring since February 28, 2018 til today still. She made some major changes to this article and has been reverted by 5 editors multiple times since then and told to discuss the changes on the talk page to reach a consensus BEFORE adding stuff to the article many times over and over since her edits are disputed. See the article history log [120] for how many times and editors have reverted her.
- 5 editors so far have informed her about WP:BRD in the article talk page [121] or the article history log over and over and she still keeps on re-adding without reaching a consensus.
- She has also been warned on her talk page for edit warring on this article on April 12, 2018 [122] by User:MBlaze Lightning but she has simply deleted the warning from her talk page. See her user page history log [123]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- While Holbach Girl has not been previously blocked, she has been extensively warned for edit warring. Two admins who have posted on her talk page are User:Dougweller and User:MSGJ. If she won't reply here and promise to wait for consensus then a block should be considered. There has been an active long-term edit war since March 1. It is not evident that anyone else agrees with her on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Article ban from Rob Sherman is one more option. Given the clear lack of efforts to collaborate, impersonation of other users, edit warring and filibustering on talk page[124], article ban is fully justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- In addition to her disruptive editing, Holbach Girl has been doing what seems like blatant trolling. Several times she flat-out copied-and-pasted the edit summary of the editors who reverted her: [125][126], [127][128], [129][130] Some of her talk page comments also seem snarky (though to a lesser degree). When MBlaze Lightning warned her for edit warring, she removed the warning tag and went to MBlaze's talk page to tag him with the same warning in return. Also, I tried twice to reach a compromise with her, keeping several of her changes that I thought were acceptable, though she continued reverting despite this. Based on all this that I observed (along with the many edit warring warnings), it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Article ban from Rob Sherman is one more option. Given the clear lack of efforts to collaborate, impersonation of other users, edit warring and filibustering on talk page[124], article ban is fully justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- While Holbach Girl has not been previously blocked, she has been extensively warned for edit warring. Two admins who have posted on her talk page are User:Dougweller and User:MSGJ. If she won't reply here and promise to wait for consensus then a block should be considered. There has been an active long-term edit war since March 1. It is not evident that anyone else agrees with her on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for not seeing this sooner, but my personal situation doesn't presently allow as frequent or extended participation here as I would like just now. I do appreciate this opportunity to petition for guidance directly from the sysops, which I certainly will of course take onboard. However, there are some false assertions and erroneous assumptions made above that beg to be set straight first. So I hope responding sysops are not adverse to paying attention to detail and doing a little checking.
First, I have not worked/talked with and do not recognize Capitals00, so I can't address from experience why they have complaints with me. Of the 10 "user's reverts" listed above, items 1 and 5 aren't my edits, but actually a concatenation of many edits. The other 8 are mine, but please consider those were made over more than 6 weeks time, in good faith, amid several dozen other improvement edits. Also I never came close to breaking the 3 revert rule, and never tried to "game" this rule. Please verify this. (Obeying a rule is NOT gaming a rule, and that is insulting to say it is.)
I have not "made some major changes to this article and been reverted 5 times". What I have made are many minor changes, and I even created a numbered list on the discussion tab explaining each one, but editors have wiped them ALL away at the same time with a single sweeping revert, without detailing any specific objections for me to address. (Sorry, I must add: the owner of the article, 1990'sguy, is an exception. He has actually made a couple of real objections that we have worked on resolving, but he has used those objections to justify wiping away MANY more unrelated good edits he doesn't discuss or even mention at all, with a single revert.) Please verify this.
As for 1990'sguy using this forum to unjustly insult me: "her disruptive editing", "seems like blatant trolling", "her talk page comments also seem snarky", "it seems that Holbach Girl is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia", I will resist the urge to present a middle finger in response. Instead, I will petition the sysops to closely review the discussion tab to verify the lack of reality behind those attacks. The 3 listed instances where I emulated the summary wording of more experienced people was not "trolling", but convenience, as my summary field sometimes auto-fills some information for me, and sometimes doesn't. (I haven't figured exactly why yet.) I haven't made "snarky" remarks, and I see no examples are given. I have expressed when I was upset or impatient with the game-playing, tho. I did take notices off of my web page and place them on MBlaze's page, because they applied equally to him, but I also petitioned him to join the discussion on improving the article. I don't presume to be able to "build an encyclopedia" by myself, but I can certainly do my part to help with specific articles as my time allows, which is my intent.
Look, I came to the Sherman article saw numerous problems, including claims Sherman "stated ..." things he didn't state, stupid stuff like categories saying he died in 1953 and also in 2016, etc. As I made improvements, editors would repeatedly wipe them all away with reverts, while never providing actionable reasons. The only editor to voice specific disagreements was the article owner, which enabled us to reach compromises: like attributing statements from a source (Zorn), or mentioning his primary notable activity (fighting for separation of church and state). Most recently, I have petitioned 1990'sguy to explain his objection to alleged "reorganization" of the article (which I deny exists, but I am still watching for his response), but he says unconvincingly that he doesn't have time. (I see him online editing everywhere but the Sherman article, which says a lot.)
EdJohnston says I should "promise to wait for consensus", which I feel I have been doing all along. I was told on the discussion tab to wait for a few days, so I did before putting the improvements back. Then I was told the rule is to wait a week for objections, so I did that. The only response was a disingenuous comment afterward from the article owner that off-line life is keeping him too busy to work on it with me. I was also directed to read the Consensus rule page, which informed me that putting "common sense" improvements back was okay, and adding after a "reasonable amount of time" without specific objections was okay. That is what I've been doing. Please verify this, and advise.
Edjohnston says no one appears to agree with my edits on the talk page, but evidently didn't notice that no one except the article owner has put forward specific disagreement either. I've worked with that only editor to provide tangible objections, and as he acknowledges, we have come to compromises. I've been patiently waiting to continue that process, and I even set up a discussion tab section to help us focus [131]. Please verify this.
I'm willing to do what is right here, of course, so I don't know why blocking should "be considered". If I am misunderstanding the consensus process, tell me. Just please explain what I should do differently, and I'll comply.Holbach Girl (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Technically there is no 3RR as the edits are spaced out but it is an edit war. I reverted back to before the war (early March) and fully protected the page for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:DanielThomasMason97 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Blocked)
Page: Driver 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielThomasMason97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&oldid=833257233
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836364258&oldid=836357888
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836351192&oldid=836267243
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driver_3&diff=836257548&oldid=836095952
Comments:
User was inserting overly detailed plot summaries that had long ago been removed by other users, so I reverted with summaries noting WP:VG/CONTENT and MOS:PLOT and asking them to discuss it on talk per WP:BRD. I asked on their talk page, as well. User instead placed a personal attack on my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xanzzibar&diff=836351722&oldid=627500258) and vandalized it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xanzzibar&diff=836366293&oldid=836358472), and place a threat/ultimatum on my user page, and then reverted my removal of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836366038&oldid=827467426 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836376636&oldid=836366550) demanding they be allowed to do what they want because of their autism. --Xanzzibar (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Add in some continued harassment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836425676&oldid=836404327 --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- And they keep re-adding their threat after I remove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836426072&oldid=836425907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836425907&oldid=836425785
- User also tried to delete this report: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=836425000&oldid=836423304
- And they keep re-adding their threat after I remove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836426072&oldid=836425907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanzzibar&diff=836425907&oldid=836425785
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at User talk:Xanzzibar. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:94.206.131.208 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: )
- Page
- British Arabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 94.206.131.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Famous British Arabs */"
- 18:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Famous British Arabs */"
- 18:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Famous British Arabs */"
- 18:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Famous British Arabs */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Yemenis in the United Kingdom. (TW)"
- 18:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on British Arabs. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
IP is repeatedly adding an unsourced, non-notable figure to a list of famous people. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)