→User:Msaeed1972 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Page protected): page has been protected by another admin |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →User:KIENGIR reported by User:LordRogalDorn (Result: Alerts): Fix my comment |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}}. Block is a partial block from the article only. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}}. Block is a partial block from the article only. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:KIENGIR]] reported by [[User:LordRogalDorn]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:KIENGIR]] reported by [[User:LordRogalDorn]] (Result: Alerts) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hungarian irredentism}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hungarian irredentism}} <br /> |
||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
::::Repeating the same thing that are not true, does not help you, WP is an incremental platfrom, verifiable. |
::::Repeating the same thing that are not true, does not help you, WP is an incremental platfrom, verifiable. |
||
::::The contents issues you summarize here is similarly fallacious, but this page is not enter do details, did already in the article's talk. I provided a source, also above I provided the diff ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977717967&oldid=977692489]), here it is again, but you the 5++ time you accusing me of lying (twice here). Regarding ''uncooperative behavior'', I accepted part of your additions, which was adequate to present (1930 census), while you just blatantly reverted all the time for your preferred version any of my restoration of status quo ante, so that's all about the objectivity of your demonstration. As another admin pointed out, using the talk page is not enough, you have to remain there and the status qou ante version should be displayed until the end of the resolution, so quite interesting why you pretend here not knowing exactly what is to be done. And please also abandon in the future accusing me of bad faith, since this is something you do. In case you don't retreat the lying accusations, and the admins do not act because of this recurrent harming of civility, I am afraid I'll have to make some steps.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 04:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)) |
::::The contents issues you summarize here is similarly fallacious, but this page is not enter do details, did already in the article's talk. I provided a source, also above I provided the diff ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977717967&oldid=977692489]), here it is again, but you the 5++ time you accusing me of lying (twice here). Regarding ''uncooperative behavior'', I accepted part of your additions, which was adequate to present (1930 census), while you just blatantly reverted all the time for your preferred version any of my restoration of status quo ante, so that's all about the objectivity of your demonstration. As another admin pointed out, using the talk page is not enough, you have to remain there and the status qou ante version should be displayed until the end of the resolution, so quite interesting why you pretend here not knowing exactly what is to be done. And please also abandon in the future accusing me of bad faith, since this is something you do. In case you don't retreat the lying accusations, and the admins do not act because of this recurrent harming of civility, I am afraid I'll have to make some steps.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 04:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)) |
||
*'''Result:''' Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under [[WP:ARBEE]]. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of [[WP:Dispute resolution]]. It is [[WP:Aspersions|risky to charge that another editor is lying]]. [[User:LordRogalDorn]], as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, [[WP:RSN]] is available. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5]] reported by [[User:Jasonbres]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5]] reported by [[User:Jasonbres]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 14:20, 13 September 2020
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:102.158.63.44 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page: Zirid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 102.158.63.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC) to 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Zirid dynasty."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
It's worth noting that this IP editor is restoring the edits made by 102.156.108.36. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected Salvio 17:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:18C:CC00:61A0:3CC9:720A:EE68:5388 reported by User:ZLMedia (Result: Blocked)
Page: List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:18C:CC00:61A0:3CC9:720A:EE68:5388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977765424 by ZLMedia (talk)"
- 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977763572 by ZLMedia (talk)"
- 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977759031 by ZLMedia (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Please look into the IP address range of 2601:18C:CC00:61A0, as also seen in the edit history of One Magnificent Morning. They have persistently reverted edits on multiple articles without citation as to why, and continue to do so under multiple anonymous IP addresses with this similar IPv6 range. --ZLMedia 02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Special:Contributions/2601:18C:CC00:61A0::/64 blocked one year. User has never posted to talk and does not use edit summaries. They were revert warring here as well as at One Magnificent Morning. Blocked as long as 6 months in the past. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:BCDB:E121:D39:529C/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Johnsmith2116 reported by User:Wjemather (Result: Blocked)
Page: U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Comments:
User continued to revert, even after being reverted by another editor and disregarding talk page discussion. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This user above (wjemather) turned back a legitimate edit of mine several times without a good cause to do so. I do not want trouble. This user (wjemather) has been targeting me in a stalk like manner for months. I tried explaining my edit today several times, but it was a lost cause. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked Salvio 16:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:93.164.22.202 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Semi)
Page: Take That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.164.22.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]
Comments:
93.164.22.202 is editing against rough consensuses on Talk:Take That (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), and have added zero sources to support the changes they proposed have supported their proposed changes with one source that contradicts said consensuses. They also repeatedly blanket reverted updates to date formats, the removal of an unreliable source (Metro (British newspaper)), and the alphabetization of categories.
When I referred 93.164.22.202 to WP:CON and reminded them that Wikipedia has policies, they stated: I dont think so ;) a lot of the articles on wikipedia has very much false information ;)
. KyleJoantalk 18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected six months. See the log for all the past protections. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:98.114.227.211 reported by User:Crboyer (Result: Blocked )
Page: Larry Kudlow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.114.227.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- User is deleting content they find "libelous" to the subject even though it's been properly sourced. Other editors have reverted their edits already. I reported them to AIV, but I was instructed to go here. Crboyer (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked for clear disruptive behavior for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:178.241.138.115 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Range blocked)
Page: Medes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.246.56.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/178.241.138.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/178.246.10.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to use the talk page.
Comments:
- A cursory check of the sources, one quote has been altered and not taken verbatim from the source, thus it is WP:OR. IP has also deleted references that give different perspective of Medes/Kurds connections. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lot of disruption from the /16 range overall on Turkish and Kurdish articles. Blocked for 48 hours. Message me if disruption resumes. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:97.112.201.44 reported by User:Bmf 051 (Result: Partial block, 48 hours)
Page: Ricardo López (stalker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.112.201.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:97.112.201.44#September 2020
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ricardo_López (stalker)#Whether he shouts "This is for you!" or "Victory!"
Comments:
- Replaced sourced content with unsourced. Has reverted to their unsourced version five times thus far. Bmf 051 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Block is a partial block from the article only. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:KIENGIR reported by User:LordRogalDorn (Result: Alerts)
Page: Hungarian irredentism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977580248&oldid=977370470
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977692578&oldid=977580248
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Comments:
The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. Unless he can provide sources for his counter-claims, this discussion will likely not go anyway. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior.
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD_misuse
I believe the other user is filibustering, since he insists that "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" despite not being able or willing to provide a source for his claims on the talk page.
LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clear WP:BOOMERANG, see discussion at ([35]), on the other hand, the user accused me recurrently at the article's talk page, his/her's talkpage about lying, and also here not providing a source, atlhough it's easy to verify I did ([36]), so it's a clear violation as well of a WP:CIVILITY issue next to the user's WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is conducted by this user in four different pages (where the respective user's, including me reset the pages to status quo ante and draw attention to keep dispute reolution policies, but had no effect, and persists misleading edit logs and comments, which are mostly copy-pasted and mirrored from the other users with slight modifications).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- Comment There have not been three reverts by either party within 24 hours, so we don't have a brightline violation of 3RR. I also don't see where this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. I don't think immediate administrative actions are warranted. If the parties cease reverting and take this matter to the talk page, no administrative action should be necessary. If the edit warring continues, then I would issue partial blocks to both parties.
- I also think that the way forward is by expanding the discussion beyond these two editors, either by asking for a third opinion or with a request for comment. I strongly suggest that the editors begin a new thread for the 3O/RFC, since the current discussion is tacked onto the end of a thread from 14 years ago. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- C.Fred,
- thanks for your feedback, however these cases are clear, a freshly created single purpose account is performing clear provocation and disruptive behavior, it's easy to verify (not a complicated case though), check the talk pages of the respective articles I already posted to another admin (the first diff in my response). Moreover, talk page discussions ARE and ongoing (except one that is referred to the article's talk mentioned here), in which the user tendetiously fails to get the point (because you mentioned "If the parties cease reverting and take this matter to the talk page...", it's already done and the user refused to remain on the talk page and to cease disruptive editing).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- KIENGIR "I made a check other places as well" does not mean you have a source. The very point of a verifiable source is that other people can verify it. You have offered a source for Hungarians immigrating in Northern Transylvania in 1941. That does not invalidate the source for the 1940 census. For your arguments against that you provided no source. If anything, the only source you provided is contrary to your constant re-edits: If there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941, then posting the 1941 census without posting this crucial element is misleading.
- C.Fred, I will do as you suggest and continue the discussion on the talk page in hopes of reaching consensus. In case no consensus can be reached again for an unreasonable reason, such as refusing to provide sources for his claims or simply not liking the changes, what should my course of action be?
- Concerning KIENGIR's unfolded accusations, this account is new, so what? From a new account to the assuming goal of "desruptive editing" is a long way, especially when only one of us provided a source for his edits. But I agree with him that the case is simple: I provided verification, he did not, counting on abusive filibustering to keep the page in the disruptive form. His 2nd accusation is a blunt lie. It can be easily verifiable that I never left the talk page, despite losing faith in having a productive discussion due to his uncooperative behavior, which is why I decided to come here in hopes of solving the issue. Is it really a WP:CIVILITY fail to call someone a liar when the proof of his lies are in plain sight? I'm not talking about an ambiguous case or simply telling his version of events. But about telling "the user left the talk page" where both my original comment and the talk page itself are clear proof that I did not. Hence, my original accusation of arguing in bad faith.
- I'll try to continue the discussion as you suggested, hopefully, a third party will come and solve the issue, as I will try to reach consensus but at this point my expectations are low. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating the same thing that are not true, does not help you, WP is an incremental platfrom, verifiable.
- The contents issues you summarize here is similarly fallacious, but this page is not enter do details, did already in the article's talk. I provided a source, also above I provided the diff ([37]), here it is again, but you the 5++ time you accusing me of lying (twice here). Regarding uncooperative behavior, I accepted part of your additions, which was adequate to present (1930 census), while you just blatantly reverted all the time for your preferred version any of my restoration of status quo ante, so that's all about the objectivity of your demonstration. As another admin pointed out, using the talk page is not enough, you have to remain there and the status qou ante version should be displayed until the end of the resolution, so quite interesting why you pretend here not knowing exactly what is to be done. And please also abandon in the future accusing me of bad faith, since this is something you do. In case you don't retreat the lying accusations, and the admins do not act because of this recurrent harming of civility, I am afraid I'll have to make some steps.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC))
- Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is risky to charge that another editor is lying. User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, WP:RSN is available. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5 reported by User:Jasonbres (Result: )
Page: Saturday Night Live (season 46) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_46%29&type=revision&diff=977955186&oldid=977946135
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_46%29&type=revision&diff=977890749&oldid=977804355# [diff]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_46%29&type=revision&diff=977931744&oldid=977914821
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_46%29&type=revision&diff=977946135&oldid=977943045
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:408:C300:39F0:219:E3FF:FEE1:15A5
Comments:
User:Msaeed1972 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Page protected)
Page: 1983 Cricket World Cup squads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msaeed1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Australia */Cricket roundup"
- 19:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Australia */From book"
- 19:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Australia */From book"
- 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Australia */From refrerences book"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 1983 Cricket World Cup squads."
- 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
- 19:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User keeps making a demonstrably false edit top the page after multiple warnings. Spike 'em (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Smalljim reported by User:199.188.176.137 (Result: Filer blocked for three months for undisclosed COI editing)
Page: Emmanuel Lemelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smalljim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmanuel_Lemelson&oldid=978059511
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smalljim&diff=978087197&oldid=978085160
Diff of an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson
Comments: SMALLJIM has reverted GF edits 5 times in the last few hours. Unfortunately, this is apparently part of a long history of SMALLJIM exerting control over the page. He continued to revert, make threats of blocking, and then making what appeared to be retaliatory edits, apparently all designed to stifle the participation of new editors while completely disregarding talk page discussion. The edits were thoroughly explained on the talk page, but it seems it is a lost cause. This editor may have some sort of connection to the subject. He appears to have also stalked other editors of the page. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
- I have been involved in this article as long as Smalljim going back years. The IP 199.188.176.137 has a distinct confrontational, tenacious and argumentative style which is exactly like previous accounts (including socks) blocked for COI editing. I fully support and agree with Smalljim's actions. The IP should not be editing the article, particularly given the nature of the content and DUCK behavior. -- GreenC 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given the style and pattern of communication as well as the repeated open collaboration (not to mentioned what appears to be shared personal feelings about the subject) Green C appears to have some sort of pre-existing relationship with SMALLJIM either online, offline, or both. Clearly this conduct is counter to the spirit and purpose of WP. Neither has been able to mount a single legitimate reason for the wholesale removal of GF, properly sourced edits, other than their personal (and shared) feeling and ideas. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- See Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#DUCK. —SMALLJIM 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- See Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#Let's_call_a_spade_a_spade.199.188.176.137 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi ~Oshwah~, Good question. There was a news story last week that was similar, as I explored it online, the Barron's article came up, so I decided to add it to WP. I began familiarizing myself more with the recent history and talk page edits from there.
- Regarding the diff link I thought I did add it, but I may not be doing it right? I did change the diff links above to something more accurate I believe. The discussion on the talk page is here [43]. Here is an example of a talk page discussion being removed [44]. There is another example of a talk page entry being deleted here [45]. Let me know if there is something else I need to do - thanks.
- Also, I would appreciate your input, as I would have also appreciated the other editor's input, as communicated here [46], on the edits, and how they can be improved, etc. The edits were straightforward and basically quoted from the sources. The Barron's article is extremely long and I invited the other editors to provide feedback or edits on what should be added, I just added what I thought was the most relevant to the section and the existing edits. I actually tended to agree with the feedback on the Dealbreaker article (once it was pointed out), but before I had a chance to improve it or implement the suggestions, all of the edits I made were repeatedly removed (without any explanation) carte blanche. The one constructive edit made in its place felt agenda-driven and somehow (oddly) retaliatory? [47] 199.188.176.137 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit / Revert War by SMALLJIM
Looking back at the history of this page, it's remarkable how much control SMALLJIM, single-handedly has asserted over the page (including removing enormous amounts of what appears to be well-referenced edits). Though there is an open Rfc, he ignores it. Though there is an open discussion on the talk page, he ignores that too. In fact, he deletes the discussion on the talk page, apparently in an effort to hide it? He also deletes the warnings on his talk page, apparently to hide those too. Though all the edits conformed both to the spirit and the letter of WP guidelines, SMALLJIM falsely believes it is an "us and them" scenario, with anyone who agrees with him being one of "us" and if someone interferes with his control of a page, they are "one of them," that is demonstrated in his comment "willing to abide by 'our' rules" as if the rules were somehow his, and WP his personal site.
This is troubling conduct for a WP editor. SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject, which is at best bias and at worst, obsessive and needs to back away from attempting to exert control over the page so that other editors can participate. I'm going to wait for other editors to respond to the Rfc, then revert the edits which should never have been undone, I'm also going to study the page history carefully to see what other viable, well-referenced edits SMALLJIM might have removed, and ensure that everything that complies with WP guidelines is added back.
As can be seen, by this edit, SMALLJIM, clearly has some sort of agenda with the page and the subject. His edits appear to be driven by retaliatory feelings rather than WP guidelines especially when he feels any editor interferes with his absolute control over the page. This seems like convincing evidence that there is some relationship between SMALLJIM and the subject.
I have added the warning for disruptive editing back to SMALLJIM talk page here.
I have also added a warning for a violation of the 3rr rule on SMALLJIM talk page here199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- There appear to be five reverts by the IP on 12th September so I would recommend a block for plain old edit warring. The only hesitation might be if there is a genuine BLP issue, but after looking at the most recent BLPN complaint from 2016 I don't think there is one. The IP appears to see User:Smalljim as his major opponent. Smalljim might be following up on the previously-reported COI issue, the one that led to several blocks, including one for sockpuppetry. If we weren't convinced to take action on the IP's edit warring, we might block for the WP:ASPERSIONS against Smalljim in the IP's post just above. ("SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject," going on to mention his 'agenda' and his 'obsession'). EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Nkon21 reported by User:70.27.41.58 (Result: Filer blocked)
- Page: Kenya Airways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: Nkon21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Nkon21 being a jerk and reverting my valid point about how the flag carrier of a country like Kenya shouldn't be allowed to use the word Pride in its slogan: Please block this a-hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.41.58 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- This should boomerang. Neither editor has violated 3RR yet, but the IP is being egregiously hostile. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Now the IP has violated WP:3RR and should be blocked any minute now. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The IP is here to make a point about the treatment of gay people in Kenya and not to write a better article about Kenya Airways. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Filer blocked. Two IPs blocked 72 hours each by User:Ohnoitsjamie per a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The IP is here to make a point about the treatment of gay people in Kenya and not to write a better article about Kenya Airways. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Now the IP has violated WP:3RR and should be blocked any minute now. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:77.191.9.108 reported by User:Pppery (Result: Blocks)
Page: Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.191.9.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada&oldid=978096458
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=978096998
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada&diff=next&oldid=978097084
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada&diff=next&oldid=978123100
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada&diff=next&oldid=978125801
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.191.9.108&oldid=978097226 (it's the creation of the page, so there isn't a diff)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:Infobox_province_or_territory_of_Canada#Timezone
Comments:
Note the IP has started editing the talk page as 77.11.42.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is clearly the same person, so should also be blocked if a block is issued. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Two IPs blocked one week each. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Grufo reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grufo (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:
- 17:15, September 12, 2020 removed "most, but not all, concubines were also slaves."
- 21:24, September 12, 2020 removed the content I added here
- 22:48, September 12, 2020, removed the content I added here
- 23:04, September 12, 2020, removed the content I added here.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]
Comments: Grufo was previous warned for edit-warring by EdJohnston[50] and Oshwah[51]. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive414#User:Grufo_reported_by_User:Vice_regent_(Result:_Page_protected;_User_warned).VR talk 04:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This user has received many warnings in the past. Enforcement at this time is fair. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:194.223.31.134 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.223.31.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Personnel */"
- 00:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Personnel */"
- 22:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Personnel */"
- 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Personnel */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent unnecessary content addition, violated WP:3RR. Disruptive edit warring behavior has also been shown on Ice Cream (Blackpink and Selena Gomez song). ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)