→reporting User:Beyond My Ken for WP:3RV: remove duplicate section... I knew I would mess something up! |
124.106.139.19 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
Please let me know if I filled any of this out incorrectly or if I'm missing something. I haven't been to [[WP:AN3]] in quite some time... Thanks, - [[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span></sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]</sub></small> 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
Please let me know if I filled any of this out incorrectly or if I'm missing something. I haven't been to [[WP:AN3]] in quite some time... Thanks, - [[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span></sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]</sub></small> 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Hijiri88]] reported by [[User:124.106.139.19]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Channel Awesome}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hijiri88}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Awesome&diff=prev&oldid=836938003] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Awesome&diff=prev&oldid=837032534] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Awesome&diff=prev&oldid=837004638] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Awesome&diff=prev&oldid=836973789] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Awesome&diff=prev&oldid=836957709] |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' The editor is a regular on ANI and has a recent edit warring warning (for another article) on his talk page, he has requested editors be blocked and been blocked numerous times, it's pretty safe to say that he is well aware of 3RR. |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page. |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
Revision as of 19:26, 18 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: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: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [2]
- [3] copied edit summary of the opposing editor's revert[4]
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
- [8] 6 April
- [9] 8 April
- [10] 12 April
- [11] 12 April
- [12] 14 April
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]
Comments:
Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Already warned of edit warring and notified about post-1932 American politics.[15] Still engaging in disruption and attempting to game WP:3RR Capitals00 (talk) 06:22, 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 [27]. 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:142.161.81.20 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No action)
- Page
- Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 142.161.81.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836457558 by Septrillion (talk) – Unexplained reversion."
- 22:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836457410 by Septrillion (talk) – Unexplained reversion"
- 22:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC) "Expanding. +Refs. CE. Returning date format per MOS:DATERET. Reversing unexplained formatting changes. Removing promotional material. Fmt refs. Etc."
- Consecutive edits made from 05:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) to 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. (TW)"
- 05:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:Walter Görlitz. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 05:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Date Ret? */ new section"
- 05:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) "correcting link"
- Comments:
The editor is also harassing me, claiming I assumed bad faith by warning the editor, which I later revoked and apologized over. The rest is self-explanatory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: Why would you warn after all the edits take place? Isn't a warning to get particular behaviour to stop?
- The reversions of Septrillion was because of a software glitch of some sort on their end. This is discussed at User talk:Septrillion § Unexplained reversions. Those reversions also have nothing to do with the concern you raised.
- Why would you open a discussion on a talk page seeking information from a particular editor without notifying them? I genuinely didn't see the discussion until now. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
... which I later revoked and apologized over
. Where is this apology to which you are referring? While I did note the lack of apology on my talk page, I don't recall receiving one since. - You have also not answered the question on my talk page: with whom was I "edit warring" as claimed? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For the record, the anon seems to be an intelligent editor who has made many good edits with policy and guideline in mind, but for some reason has taken exception with a date change I made and other changes on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- One reversal ≠ edit warring. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Having reviewed the justification on the talk page, I completely agree with Walter Görlitz regarding the date format. He had not provided that his format change was made pursuant to MOS:DATERET (instead broadly citing MOS:DATEFORMAT) and thus there was no prima facie justification for a format change. As the article first used MDY, I agree that should be used here and will return that to the article if there is no objection. I do, however, still want to know how one reversal (not even a full reversion) in line with WP:BRD constitutes an "edit war". Could you enlighten us, Walter Görlitz? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Also... why was a discussion on the talk page only opened after 3RR was surpassed (by wholly unrelated good-faith edits regarding which all editors are and have always been agreed, and which were made only because of a technical glitch that Septrillion acknowledges) and only six minutes before this report was made? If this isn't gaming the system (WP:GAME), I don't know what is. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: No action. It appears that this dispute is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:UserHerName reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Warned)
Page: Jeff Novitzky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UserHerName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [36] "just adding important historical data."
- [37] "Undid revision 835542243 by Marianna251 (talk)"
- [38] "Undid revision 836581868 by Marianna251 (talk) citation provided, from mmaarena, revert should suffice now."
- [39] "Undid revision 836699895 by Marianna251 (talk) You did not read the talk page where I explained this, reverting back to take to dispute resolution."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Discussion on my talk page
- Talk:Jeff_Novitzky#Nickname,_again (opened RfC on article's talk)
Comments:
There's been a long-standing issue over IPs and new editors repeatedly adding the "Golden Snitch" nickname to the Jeff Novitzky article. The talk page very clearly shows a lack of consensus to include it at this point, and UseHerName has previously tried to include it [41] but was reverted and did not succeed in gaining a consensus to include it on the talk.
I discussed the issues with UseHerName on my talk page, but unfortunately I've found them to be quite combative and unwilling to engage or acknowledge the points I've made. I'm also concerned about the slightly deceptive edit summary "just adding important historical data" when adding the nickname to the lead, especially since it comes after they'd already tried to add the nickname and been reverted, and about comments like "A consensus has already been established, outside of Wikipedia", which shows a lack of understanding about what consensus on Wikipedia means.
I'm not going to make any more edits or changes to the Jeff Novitzky article until the RfC has run its course - I've said my piece and I'm backing off, but I am concerned that if another editor reverts the addition then the edit war will just keep going. Page protection while the discussion continues would be great, if admins feel that is appropriate. Marianna251TALK 11:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- You edited/reverted the page without even discussing it, check the timestamps on the talk-page, I clearly wanted to establish a consensus and you went ahead and reverted my changes without any discussion when you clearly knew there was a discussion ongoing on the talk-page. One of your edits I reverted accidentally, as you clearly stated it was a dummy edit, I thought I was reverting back to the page as it was before you reverted it, however, you added a space so when I reverted it looks like I reverted it 3-times. You'd spaced edit was deceptive, you did that so I have to revert back, so it looks like I am the one engaging in an edit war, furthermore you never engaged on the talk page you just go ahead and revert the edit, and don't understand why you keep doing that if you know there isn't a consensus established, and the discussion has come to a deadlock. Furthermore, if any admin wants to go a little deeper and check I called this person out first and told them I would report them to Arbcom so or go for dispute resolotion, so when this person saw what I mentioned they've decided to come here, if you check my revert this person clearly added a dummy edit, so I am forced into editing the aticle back to its orginal state, as the person refused to discuss the revert on the talk-page when I had clearly explained why, and I even said don't revert back leave to the last edited version by me so we can take this to a disupite resolotion. It seems very suspect they've used this notice board when other options were avaliable, and in all honsty are my edit summaries really deceptive as this person claims? UserHerName (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to respond point by point:
- We had engaged in discussion on my talk page, where I explained why I felt the edit was not appropriate and encouraged you to open an RfC, but you didn't reply there and I honestly didn't see your comment on the article's talk page. The comment was added onto an old discussion, which isn't a problem in itself, but the references on the page following it made it less-than-obvious. I apologise for missing it; however, the talk page comment is largely irrelevant, because you continued to revert after I warned you against edit warring. Discussing on the talk page doesn't cancel out edit warring on the article. (I'm aware that I've toed the line here and I'm not blameless, but I do hold hard to 3RR and I warned you that you need to do the same. Ultimately it was your decision to continue reverting.)
- Re: the dummy edit, I counted these two diffs as one revert when filing this report. The dummy edit was made just to continue my edit summary (I hit the wrong key on my keyboard when writing the previous edit summary and it cut off halfway through) and I did not count your revert of that edit separately. I linked to the dummy edit revert above in order to show your edit summary.
- Re: your ArbCom mention, I only actually noticed that while I was filing this report. On that note, however, I don't think threatening me with ArbCom again [42] is the best way to encourage discussion, especially after I asked you to meet me halfway [43]. I am still concerned that you feel ArbCom is even a possibility at this stage, because that looks (to me, anyway) like you're already convinced that we won't be able to resolve this issue between us.
- I very much want to meet halfway, and I'm glad that you indicated on my talk page that you'd be willing to "let the RfC run its course, to let an uninvolved editor (i.e. not either of us) close it, and for neither of us to edit the article in the meantime". I'd be willing to withdraw this report, but before I do so I would like some assurance from you that you understand the issue that led us here, i.e. that it didn't look like you were going to stop edit warring irrespective of any discussion, and that that's a problem. As I've said to you before, it can be tough to back away when you get emotionally involved with things, but that's when you most need to do so. Hope that clarifies things. Marianna251TALK 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to respond point by point:
- Here's another reversion, ten minutes after the EW warning and still inside the 24 hour window. Please block. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- FYI Chris, I counted that one as the same reversion as the one before it, because the previous revert was of my dummy edit and not what UserHerName intended to revert. Personally I don't count that as an extra on top. Marianna251TALK 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is clear you both are now attempting to bully me. I take serious issue with this. I will not be commenting further on this here, I will let the admins do their job, I hope the admins can get to the buttom of this why chris has reverted the article and also has attemped to bully me. UserHerName (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to take action because I have to head out to work, but @UseHerName, I strongly advise you to stop the "bullying" accusations. You're being disagreed with, not bullied. Any more personal attacks of that kind from you will earn a block on their own. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, UserHerName. Just in case you missed it above, I said I am willing to withdraw this report if I can get an assurance from you that you understand the issue with edit warring and won't edit war further. If you can offer me that, then I see no reason to pursue this any further. If you think I have bullied you, well, I'm very sorry about that - obviously I don't agree, but if you feel you need to pursue a complaint about me then that's up to you. (FYI, I'm aware that Chris Troutman has my talk page on his watchlist, which is probably how he came across this discussion. There's no conspiracy here, if that's what you're thinking.) Marianna251TALK 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Result: No action for now. UserHerName came to my user talk to complain and I told them to take Chris' suggestion and cool off, which they have agreed to do. This is hopefully sufficient, considering Marianna251 stated above that they are not interested in pursuing this further in this case. I echo Acroterion's statement above though: Continued personal attacks or edit-warring will most likely result in a block. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment:@Marianna251 I understanding edit waring is wrong, and I haven't in the past, I was trying to get it back to the original state, where I had left it so we can establish some consensus whether or not the nickname should be included, I posted on the talk page my reasoning. I take back the bullying claim but I do find it rather suspect that Chris had joined in, it's hard not to believe he isn't your friend etc, but I don't want to get into that. As I said I understand reverting articles because you disagree with someone is rather childish. So, despite saying that, I think you should let this run its course. I don't want you to withdraw it now if I've made a mistake fair enough I'll accept the punishment. I just think if you're going to take it this far then you shouldn't remove it now. UserHerName (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. The purpose of bringing this report here was to stop or at least minimise disruption, not to punish anyone for anything, so I think this report has run its course - we've both agreed to back off, go through with the RfC and leave the article alone for now, which is perfect. I'm happy with SoWhy's close. In the interest of clarity/full disclosure/whatever, I am friendly with Chris, but I didn't contact him or ask him to weigh in. He might not have come across this if we weren't already friendly, because he wouldn't have a reason to have my talk page on his watchlist, but that's as far as it goes. Hope that clears everything up. Marianna251TALK 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment:@Marianna251 I understanding edit waring is wrong, and I haven't in the past, I was trying to get it back to the original state, where I had left it so we can establish some consensus whether or not the nickname should be included, I posted on the talk page my reasoning. I take back the bullying claim but I do find it rather suspect that Chris had joined in, it's hard not to believe he isn't your friend etc, but I don't want to get into that. As I said I understand reverting articles because you disagree with someone is rather childish. So, despite saying that, I think you should let this run its course. I don't want you to withdraw it now if I've made a mistake fair enough I'll accept the punishment. I just think if you're going to take it this far then you shouldn't remove it now. UserHerName (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- As seen as though Chris IS your firend it is proberbly in their best intrest to revert the article back to where we made the agreement otherwise it looks like he is reverting on your behalf, since a consensus hasn't been established despite that Chris jumped in and reverted it back to your version which is in your intrest, if Chris refuss to do that, and go back to mine and your orginal agreement on your talk page I will be looking into what action I can take to have Chris invesitaged, for his interjection, why is a friend of yours reverting articles which we are having a disagreement on? as it can be considered WP:MTPPT and WP:CANVAS voilation. UserHerName (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, enough. You've been warned by two different admins about making personal attacks, and now you've just gone and accused me and Chris of meatpuppetry and canvassing. I've tried my hardest with you, but I am reaching the end of my rope with your constant personal attacks, threats and assumptions of bad faith. Two people are capable of coming to the same conclusion independently! Really, seriously, I think you should log out right now and walk away for a bit, come back in a day or two. Marianna251TALK 14:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: As the closing admin, please could you review UserHerName's above comments. Marianna251TALK 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Final comment: I'm going to follow my own advice and log out now. Marianna251TALK 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Marianna251 It isn't a personal attack. If you want to end this we can, I can leave you alone and leave the Jeff article as well. Let's just both settle on ending this I will call it a day and log off, if you want to agree to that. I don't want to upset anyone, I'm not that type of person, so in the intrest of keeping the peace, I take back what I have said, and I apolagise. Can we just end it now? UserHerName (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Warned. With respect to Chris, who has mounted a final attempt to calmly resolve the situation, I left it at a final warning. Next personal attack will result in a block. And yes, insinuating that people might have violated WP:MEAT or WP:CANVASS is a personal attack. I hope the above apology (which was issued after the warning) and a step back from the area for a day or two will be sufficient. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Alanscottwalker reported by User:Dilidor (Result: )
- Page
- Thirteen Colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836731059 by Dilidor (talk) no, and don;t abuse Twnkle"
- 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836712261 by Dilidor (talk) it's you who needs to not edit war"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Thirteen Colonies. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing */ new section"
- Comments:
User:Alanscottwalker is engaging in an edit war by persistently reverting reversions. He is endeavoring to add unsupported original research into the intro and refuses to A) provide support; B) respond on the talk page; C) refrain from reverting. Please note that I have only linked to today's reversion warring; see the history for all the other instances. Dilidor (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- This entire report is not true. Dilidor says on the talk page that the edits in issue are good content. Moreover, Per LeadCite, the material has stood in the lead, and is cited in the body of the article, and I have discussed on the talk-page , it's Dilidore that needs better conduct and has not been responsive. Rather, Dilidor popped up today at the article abusing Twinkle, and oddly undoing multiple editors when there is nothing at all going on at the article, with a bogus edit summary and then if anything revert again by Dilidor [44]) and Dilidor should be in danger of losing Twinkle, not making time-wasting reports where they appear to be in effect accusing themselves of edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:75.142.111.231 reported by User:BrxBrx (Result: Blocked)
Page: Moby Dick (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.142.111.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836739277&oldid=828769857
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836739700
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836740096
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_(restaurant)&diff=next&oldid=836740781
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836739277&oldid=828769857
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A75.142.111.231&type=revision&diff=836740726&oldid=836740119
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=836740449&oldid=566666374
Comments:
This user appears to have edited this page in the past for the precise reason, under a different IP.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=825859395&oldid=819184217
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moby_Dick_%28restaurant%29&type=revision&diff=800990127&oldid=799019661
BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 16:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Stale)
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: [45]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:16, 23 March 2018
Diff of 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:
The previous report filed was mistakenly archived (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive364#User:London Hall reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: )) by the bot, before any result, so I'm filing a report again. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334#User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection) and the sockpuppet case awaiting a behavioural investigation. Pahlevun (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Stale CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I'd like to work with Pahlevun on People's Mujahedin of Iran, but he's generaly just hostile and won't let any one else come near the page. 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). Proposing that the page be 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) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Ragomego reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ragomego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] – no point getting into a discussion if he won't explain his reverts.
Comments: User:Ragomego keeps changing Manuel Charr's flagicon on the article, when he is currently listed as representing Germany per his BoxRec bio. Never leaves edit summaries, and has previous history of edit warring. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
BoxRec nationality Syria..... and Official website WBA SYR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragomego (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I rescind this report. The nationality of Charr in the abovementioned BoxRec profile has been changed from German to Syrian in the past 24 hours; very likely within the past few hours. User:Ragomego's edits are correct. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Aboudaqn reported by User:Eric (Result: )
Page: Perche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aboudaqn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
In the article on the former French county of Perche, the user Aboudaqn is placing "the" in front of the county's name, insisting that French usage of the definite article before placenames carries over to English in this case (referring to the county as "the Perche", instead of "Perche"). The editor bases this assertion on a couple exceptions to the overwhelming standard English usage that omits the definite article before French and other placenames, and on one 2002 book that employs the definite article (see Google Books link below). Note that the French la Bourgogne is translated as "Burgundy", not "the Burgundy"; le Texas as "Texas", not "the Texas"; l'Angleterre as "England", not "the England"; etc.
- Article discussion page: Talk:Perche
- Google ngram for "perche" vs "the perche":
Somewhat related discussion: User_talk:Aboudaqn#Show_preview
Eric talk 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Response:
- 1. I welcome administration and aid from Wikipedia colleagues. Had I known how to ask, I would have done so myself: I am glad Eric has done so. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- 2. Eric mentions only his "side" of arguments, rather than cut to the chase, also present mine, and expedite your resolution of this issue. Some points I would state here:
- - Just today, I countered his French-focused arguments with English terms such as current names like The Netherlands and The Bronx as well as older terms like the Ukraine and The Sudan (which fit "the Perche," since all three of these names find themselves obsolesced either by new national names (Ukraine, Sudan) or redistribution (of the lands of the Perche). He ignored my response.
- - Several times, I have cited (and enjoined him to counter-cite) a scholarly English source which uses "the Perche" (https://books.google.com/books?id=SJJ6SKK2nZAC&q=perche#v=snippet&q=%22the%20Perche%22&f=false). I have looked at his citation above (Google Books search on "county perche france") – my source comes up first, another source [58] refers to the first source, and the rest of the first-page hits clearly do not carry the scholarly weight of the first source.
- - At this point, all I care is that Wikipedia's readers see the most correct way to say Le Perche in English. What is Eric's intent? Would he like people to learn to say "Bronx" over "The Bronx" just because the French have been saying Bronx instead of Le Bronx in French?... The leading scholarly book in the English language on Le Perche uses "the Perche": isn't correct usage a goal of Wikipedia? --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- 3. Also, Eric skips over his many other nitpickings to many other additions I made to the article. If you look the article's history, his changes have (if memory serves) have all been reactions, that is, sadly only undoing, rather than adding or augmenting himself – and ignoring my requests for his positive input and collaboration. (Please contrast with later contributor "Cblambert", who has made numerous, excellent improvements to the article since mine – including the very thoughtful, technically impressive "t-column table" – see under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perche#Major_towns – this after Eric had a long argument against my inclusion of distances with towns in the first place...) Thus, "the Perche" vs. "Perche" is the last in a long list of items he has opposed. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- 4. Please see:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perche
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aboudaqn#Show_preview --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- 5. Lastly, I'm sorry if I'm over-signing my entries: recently, Eric criticized me for failing to sign something ("— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn"), so I'm taking extra care here. --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Response from Eric:
User:Laschuetz reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Indef)
- Page
- Essenes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Laschuetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Alternate hypothesis"
- 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Biblically-based alternate hypothesis corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls"
- 22:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Added alternate hypothesis. Quit hiding the truth!"
- 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Scholarly discussion */Added alternate hypothesis"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Essenes. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 22:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "/* alternative hypothesis? */ new section"
- Comments:
This has been a pattern for two years. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely – The user seems to be here on Wikipedia to add their own original research to articles, with citation of a blog by Alan Schuetz. No intention to improve the encyclopedia. They are up to nine reverts at Essenes. They were previously blocked for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
User:2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Range blocked)
- Page
- Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836932093 by Walter Görlitz (talk) was already sourced in article via singer's and record label's websites plus these added today and WG is nearly 3RR again so this is a warning not to edit war or vandalize or harass/stalk/hound/insult/attack me anymore as you continue to do"
- 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 836930853 by Walter Görlitz (talk) again you are not paying attention and we both know he rapped on multiple songs and had the first rap hit which is sourced plus the period was in the middle of a sentence"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) to 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Additional credits and collaborations */ t"
- 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jon Gibson (Christian musician). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ new section"
- 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
- 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
- 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ once again, please respect MOS:INDENTGAP"
- 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ R"
- 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated Acts */ ec"
- Comments:
Additional background at Talk:List of Christian hip hop artists#Jon Gibson Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I did make earlier edits to expand references, etc. They were, in my opinion, minor edits. I would be happy to self-revert my last edit if they are not considered minor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
WG is the one needing reporting. I have not reverted again and planned to leave multiple times as I will after sending this. It's him not getting a consensus first. See the 'list of Christian hip hop' article as proof and take time to read the talk pages of 'list of Christian rock bands' as well as 'jon gibson' to see he is causing disruptions, edit wars and vandalism. Removing good sources (one claiming Gibson wasn't mentioned when he was) and him contradicting himself on 'list of Christian hip hop artists' when the consensus not to include Van Morrison and U2 on 'list of Christian rock bands' goes ignored. JG did original rap and was a part of a hip hop rap group with MC Hammer (sourced). Incorporating rap in pop music still makes him a rapper but WG won't acknowledge this. Clear sources state this unlike WG's sources (or lack of) claiming U2 and VM are Christian rock bands when they're secular. Walter needs to stop hounding me as he does on "Yah Mo Be There", "Deezer D", "Billy Graham", "MC Hammer", "Dust in the Wind", etc. Knowing we have a history and don't see eye-to-eye, he needs to avoid me. Plenty of record/proof of him edit warring with me and being wrong plus putting fake warnings/blocks against me to silence me all because i'm using an IP. His obsession to OWN articles is way out-of-line. I don't appreciate the recent accusations he made about me either. I concede not to include JG as a hip hop artist but he needs to also stop reverting legit contributions I make and not remove the ones from the other list articles as well. Thank you for your time! 2600:1702:1690:E10:C8C8:4C73:ECE2:AC4A (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 for one month for disruptive editing. The range has been blocked several times since March 1. An IP who is probably the same person was blocked in March by User:Oshwah for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
User:119.94.192.53 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Page protected )
- Page
- List of GMA Network drama series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 119.94.192.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
- 15:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
- 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
- 05:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC) "/* 2018 */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
vandalism continuous removed all drama and upcoming shows. mostly unexplained editor from the behavior. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected Semi-protected for 3 days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Psantora (Result: )
Page: Commissioners' Plan of 1811 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 12 April 2018
Diffs of the user's reverts: (see text "{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2018}}" for the clearest example of 3RV)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811#Citation style inconsistency Section started by Imzadi1979 directly after the first revert :-: 19:55, 17 April 2018 I have made attempts there as well, including warnings about the 3RR.
Comments:
Beyond My Ken (BMK) has had a history of edit warring and other problematic and disruptive editing activity, as is evident in their long block history and other activity at WP:ANI/WP:AN3. This dispute is currently about the referencing style on Commissioners' Plan of 1811, but there is other problematic activity on related articles as well. I get the impression BMK is reverting simply because they don't like the edits being done to "their" articles and templates - in violation of WP:OWN. I'm not the only involved editor. @Imzadi1979 and @TheDragonFire have also been reflexively reverted based on a quick glance of BMK's recent contribution history. I'm willing to bet if I dug deeper there would be substantially similar issues that have happened in the past. I've tried to engage BMK about these edits on my talk page (as have others on their talk pages), but they haven't been at all receptive, even when citing existing and widely supported policy. Some of these edits are about extra whitespace that they seem to add indiscriminately and inexplicably to some sections with the comment <!-- spacing -->. Some of them have been about removing perfectly valid links in and within citation templates. Others have reverted completely uncontroversial improvements just because they haven't looked very closely at what they are reverting. Regardless, BMK has been editing here for quite some time, and has even bragged about their prolific editing activity. They should know better.
Please let me know if I filled any of this out incorrectly or if I'm missing something. I haven't been to WP:AN3 in quite some time... Thanks, - PaulT/C 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88 reported by User:124.106.139.19 (Result: )
Page: Channel Awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [59]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor is a regular on ANI and has a recent edit warring warning (for another article) on his talk page, he has requested editors be blocked and been blocked numerous times, it's pretty safe to say that he is well aware of 3RR.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite making multiple reverts within a 24 hour period, the editor has made no attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page.
Comments: