No edit summary |
Juanpumpchump (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 389: | Line 389: | ||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> I tried to start a discussion on the article talk page, inviting the editor to engage with me on the article talk page by asking them on their personal talk page, and was met with hostility. A conversation began on the talk page but no consensus was made and the editor continued to revert. -- [[User:Willthacheerleader18|Willthacheerleader18]] ([[User talk:Willthacheerleader18|talk]]) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC) |
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> I tried to start a discussion on the article talk page, inviting the editor to engage with me on the article talk page by asking them on their personal talk page, and was met with hostility. A conversation began on the talk page but no consensus was made and the editor continued to revert. -- [[User:Willthacheerleader18|Willthacheerleader18]] ([[User talk:Willthacheerleader18|talk]]) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*{{u|Juanpumpchump}}, while I personally may agree with your removal of contents from the article, the way you've gone about getting it done is highly [[wp:disruptive|disruptive]]. You're liable for a straight block right now, unless you confirm at the soonest that you will (1) refrain from [[wp:edit warring|edit warring]] and will never again cross the [[WP:3RR]] line; (2) self-revert your last three consecutive edits to the article and wait for consensus on the talk page before removing the material (I may support you in talk page discussions) (3) stop pointing out other editors' past block logs in your discussions. I'm giving you this last chance to accept these conditions, failing which you will be blocked. [[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color: black; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC) |
*{{u|Juanpumpchump}}, while I personally may agree with your removal of contents from the article, the way you've gone about getting it done is highly [[wp:disruptive|disruptive]]. You're liable for a straight block right now, unless you confirm at the soonest that you will (1) refrain from [[wp:edit warring|edit warring]] and will never again cross the [[WP:3RR]] line; (2) self-revert your last three consecutive edits to the article and wait for consensus on the talk page before removing the material (I may support you in talk page discussions) (3) stop pointing out other editors' past block logs in your discussions. I'm giving you this last chance to accept these conditions, failing which you will be blocked. [[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color: black; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
Hi, just logged in for the first time today. |
|||
No further revisions on the subject from me. |
|||
[[User:Juanpumpchump|Juanpumpchump]] ([[User talk:Juanpumpchump|talk]]) 11:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Libhye]] reported by [[User:AveTory]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Libhye]] reported by [[User:AveTory]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 11:53, 19 October 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:Mattximus reported by User:Dilidor (Result: )
Page: List of municipalities in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mattximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&oldid=863693415
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863300286&oldid=863217433
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863471269&oldid=863392092
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=863690694&oldid=863688052
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island&type=revision&diff=864222022&oldid=863693415
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_municipalities_in_Rhode_Island#Report_of_Edit_Warring
Comments:
Mattximus and I were warned to cease editing until consensus had been reached. We continued discussion on Talk but did not reach consensus—so Mattximus simply reverted and claimed that we had. —Dilidor (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have left a warning to Mattximus to self-revert to avoid a block, but they have not edited Wikipedia since that warning was given. The prior edit warring complaint can be seen here. I think we should wait to see if Mattximus will respond before taking action on a block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Krishendrix78 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Warned)
Page: Royal Air Force Museum London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krishendrix78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:46, 16 October 2018 (have merged the sections of description and aircraft on display. I hope this is better?)
- 18:19, 16 October 2018 (Two sections which were there before - and had been there for several years - were removed, which does not seem to make sense as other aviation museums do have lists of aircraft on display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aviation_museums_in_England)
- 18:57, 15 October 2018 (I have added independent references to the article, which back up all information in this article)
- 15:52, 15 October 2018 (Undid revision 864151123 by Mean as custard Hello, I am reverting this, because last time I did remove the promotional aspect. If you still feel it is incorrect or biased, please let me know which parts and I will gladly change them.)
- 11:10, 15 October 2018 (Undid revision 864137257 by Mean as custard (talk) I have reverted this edit and I will tone down any soapboxing. However, make sure you communicate about which parts you are unhappy. Dismissing and deleting my hard day's work is not really constructive !)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]
Comments: WP:PAID editor repeatedly inserting massive amount of unsourced, promotional cruft in the face of advice/warnings from myself, Mean as custard, David Biddulph and Cullen328. See my edit summary for details. Incidentally, Twinkle wouldn't load the report for me (3X!), so apologies if this is more malformed than usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)
- Krishendrix78, this is the final discussion before blocking you. When your edits have been challenged, and if you continuously attempt to reinstate your version, this is considered disruptive. Moving forward, and IMP: Do you agree to only add that material which you have first discussed on the talk page and and have gained consensus for the same? Lourdes 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Result: User:Krishendrix78 is warned for edit warring. Per this statement on their talk page they have agreed to stop editing the article. If they make any further changes that don't have prior consensus they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:AssociateAffiliate reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Declined)
- Page
- James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AssociateAffiliate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "AssociateAffiliate moved page James Jones (cricketer, born 1878) to James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) over redirect: Perhaps you ought to check this... http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/30/30663/30663.html"
- 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864381346 by Zackmann08 (talk) Yeah coz I pulled those dates out my arse, you know."
- 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has reverted multiple edits despite the fact that their edits broke the template and directly contradict the source on the page. The user did provide a link that supposedly supports their claim but it links to a page that requires paid access. When attempting to discuss the issue, user immediately resorted to accusing me of being on a power trip. I'm removing myself from any further edits to the page in question but would like an admin to look into this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Lol. The fearful admin police. How do I plead your honour? Guilty! StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is being discussed here. Hopefully this is now resolved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Declined, and discussions, as mentioned by Lugnuts, are continuing. Lourdes 14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Pleckaitis reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: )
- Page
- 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Pleckaitis (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 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 12:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 12:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
- 12:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Help 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
- 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Kerch explosion 2018. (TW)"
- 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fyderast. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Keeps pushing the same unreferenced POV stuff (e.g. added a line about Russian government's involvement into the massacre 30 minutes after the article was created without citing a single source and kep adding it for a while after my reversions). Was trying to add unrelated categories (e.g. linking the article to the category about Russian apartment bombings of 1999). Has a history of the same POV pushing (which I highlighted among the warnings given above) and multiple warnings apparently didn't help. I reported him for vandalism but apparently that doesn't classify as vandalism according to User:Ferret so I am reporting him for edit warring instead since he's still engaged on the article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- For whoever evaluates this case, the relevant declined AIV report: here. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [3]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In the edit summary
Comments:
72bikers has been one party to a particularly bitter content dispute on this page. I had proposed that two of the key editors in the dispute take the discussion to WP:DR/N as I thought they both made very good points and hoped to see a compromise solution. Another editor discussed whether the involvement of third parties might make that untenable and I argued that a lot of the editors involved would hopefully fall behind a compromise between these two key individuals. I also mentioned as an aside that there was one editor who I didn't expect would support any compromise but that I didn't think their position was relevant to the dispute. I did not name that editor.
72bikers then claimed I was casting aspersions on them. So I replied with a diff to where they'd made the precise statement that I'd previously referenced in my comment. They moved their accusation that I was casting aspersions and hatted my comment. I unhatted my comment and replied that it was hardly fair for them to accuse me of casting aspersions and then to hide the proof I had not done so when it was furnished. And they reverted it back out again. I should note that this page is covered under WP:1RR. Other editors restored my comment as I'd objected to its removal. and 72bikers continued edit warring to keep my statement hidden. As I understand it WP:1RR applies to article talk as well as the article. As they are well aware. This is not the first time they've been up here for edit warring on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Update: they just self-reverted after receiving a second warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Warned 72bikers self-reverted at my suggestion, and I restored the comment to follow the comment Simonm223 originally replied to, where 72bikers had subsequently moved it. I think we can call this resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've not looked into this particular edit war, but when this popped up on my watchlist I recalled that 72bikers has edit warred on this topic before. They should really try to be more relaxed and neutral about guns as a topic. Save everyone a lot of stress. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah several there should really just step back and take a break. Though I am not seeing the neutral issue you mention. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've not looked into this particular edit war, but when this popped up on my watchlist I recalled that 72bikers has edit warred on this topic before. They should really try to be more relaxed and neutral about guns as a topic. Save everyone a lot of stress. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It is strange that Legacypac would come here stating "more relaxed and neutral". Because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [8] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [9] by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the diff[10] of editor Simon223 used to cast aspersions. It was one edit to this paragraph.
Extended content
|
---|
This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. ( At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly. It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018") I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018 |
As you can see It in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 has falsely claimed "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," As shown I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article from a expert in criminology James Alan Fox.
I fail to see why I should have to suffer this abuse. His comment were completely off topic and a violation of the restriction on the article.
- Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
Should I open a complaint or deal with this here? I collapsed his comment because it was off topic and uncivil as to policy support. please advise. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also point out editor Simon223 is trying to mislead with his comment about I am alone in my views, when in fact numerous editor agree with me, so I am no standout. The discussion going on is based on just one editor trying to make a claim that is not supported by any RS's, but simply trying to twist words and promote his own views that would just be OR. -72bikers (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've pointed out to 72bikers twice now that 1) the diff they've linked of Simonm223 casting aspersions is 72bikers' own edit, and 2) nobody can make a comment "at 30:21". In response they copy-pasted another response with the same two errors back on my talk page, and I see they've made those same two mistakes here. If the user is this difficult to deal with on the discussion page they should be banned from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just some clarification on the 30:21, I think they are refering to a time stamp on a video used for a source.[11] Not for a user comment here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- thank you Pac I have addressed this on Ivanvector's talk page.
- This is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN[12]. The specific time was in relation to his comments. My whole edit at NPOV noticeboard you can read from the link editor 223 used, he said (incorrectly) supported his aspersions[13]. What I am providing here is the whole paragraph editor 223 claimed I was trying to remove all content about mass shootings from the AR-15 article. When in fact I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article. I will collapse to avoid looking like a wall of text.
- Just some clarification on the 30:21, I think they are refering to a time stamp on a video used for a source.[11] Not for a user comment here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. ( At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly. It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018") I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018 |
- As you can see I in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 aspersions have falsely claimed [14],[15],[16]"I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,". By not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear his actions are just violations of the civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
...They started an ANI section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_aspersions,_personal_attacks,_or_assumptions_of_bad_faith. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Glory2Suriname reported by User:Ifnord and User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Khas people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864502198 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained inclusion of unsourced content, please use talk page"
- 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501979 by Ifnord (talk) I have adepquately ex"
- 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501117 by D4iNa4 (talk)okay but the photos and unsourced content cannot just be included"
- 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864494334 by 27.34.20.161 (talk) Khas ethnicity of the people in the photos not mentioned"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ reincluding source"
- 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ dubious tag added"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ unsourced and grammatically incorrect"
- 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source is not in English, cannot verify what exactly it says"
- 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source links to wikipedia, full citation needed"
- 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ random IP is making assertions about my ethnicity and including unsourced photos"
- Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ File says Nepali, not has"
- 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Editor refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comments:
Editor refuses to engage in discussion and is reverting all edits and has therefore breached the 3 revert rule. Glory2Suriname (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct in your self-assessment. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs) blocked by Favonian. for 24 hours. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Amsgearing reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Protected)
- Page
- Ron Stallworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Amsgearing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We've been having a slow-motion edit war (fewer than 3 reverts per 24 hours, typically) at Ron Stallworth. I've done what I could to bring in other opinions on the talk page, and it seems there is support for my position of including a photo or two, and I've compromised on just the one photo that several editors said they'd prefer, but Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo.
The entire talk page consists of attempts to resolve this: Talk:Ron Stallworth. The argument continues about what the consensus opinion there was.
Amsgearing's reverts of photo additions:
I gave a 3RR warning here before his latest revert.
Advice would be welcome, or a block if this has gone too far. Block me, too, if you think that will help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I attempted, multiple times, to explain to Dicklyon that since the discussion revealed most editors were not in favor of using a high school yearbook photo as the lead image for an article about a police officer, the image should not be used. Dicklyon is emotionally attached to using this image because, apparently, he scanned it himself from his high school yearbook, and refuses to recognize that he's the only one in favor of using it. He engaged in WP:CANVAS here, where he asked a friend of his to weigh in on the topic, and that friend dutifully responded with support. Still, 3 other editors, including myself, weighed in that the image was inappropriate. Dicklyon never started an actual RfC, as I suggested, probably because he knows what the outcome would be. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestion that "Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo" is a gross mischaracterization; the only other editor that re-added the exact same yearbook photo was his friend Randy Kryn, whom he canvassed to enlist support in this discussion. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected Full-protected for a short time to make sure everyone understands consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jawswade reported by User:Saqib (Result: No action )
Page: Humayun Akhtar Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jawswade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jawswade's reverts :
Comments:
a SPA having COI adding unsourced promotional material to a BLP despite warnings on their user talk page. Also I gave a 3RR warning. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Stale No discussion on the talk page. Try that first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Did you see User talk:Jawswade ? Despite 3RR warning, Jawswade continue to edit war. --Saqib (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw a pile of Twinkle spam but no substantial discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: But this is not really a newbie. The user have been editing like an experienced user from day first as one see here. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but what if he does not care to respond? --Saqib (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw a pile of Twinkle spam but no substantial discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Did you see User talk:Jawswade ? Despite 3RR warning, Jawswade continue to edit war. --Saqib (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:178.93.238.254 reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: Protected )
- User being reported
- 178.93.238.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Page
- Template:Events at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "reason?"
- 15:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Page
- Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "reason?"
- 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 10:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
- 19:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user has removed warnings from their talk page and continued edit warring without discussing or justifying the edits. The pages involved: Template:Events at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics, 2018 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2014 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners, 2016 Winter Youth Olympics medal table. Possibly previously used IP: 37.54.3.197 (talk · contribs). Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wait... What is "oktoober"? Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not more than 3 reverts in 24 hours here. The correct links to "medal tables" and "lists of medallists" (where exists) were added by me to the navigation boxes. The event navboxes have the links to all medal tables in the individual sports and finally should be linked to the "total medal table". Basic navboxes like {{Events at the 2016 Summer Olympics}} has similar format many years already. Note, Pelmeen10 didn't say any rationale for his reverts. What is the problem with this edits? 178.93.238.254 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- You or user 178.92.148.243 added links to medal table to {{Events at the 2016 Summer Olympics}} and other Olympics templates in February. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is wrong with addition of the related links? Where is the Pelmeen10 rationale for his reverts. 178.93.238.254 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's is no justification to edit warring. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, which you should have done in the first place to propose changes. Why were you reverted - because medal table/medal winners are not events. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is wrong with addition of the related links? Where is the Pelmeen10 rationale for his reverts. 178.93.238.254 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- You or user 178.92.148.243 added links to medal table to {{Events at the 2016 Summer Olympics}} and other Olympics templates in February. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: This was not the only page I reported, see Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh right; done that as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: But no actions towards the user, not even a warning? Clearly broke the 3RR in that last page. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, because then I'd have to warn you and Sportsfan 1234 for edit warring too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: But no actions towards the user, not even a warning? Clearly broke the 3RR in that last page. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh right; done that as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: This was not the only page I reported, see Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Curdle reported by User:Majikalex32 (Result: No violation)
- Page
- Kate Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Curdle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- [37]
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- [43]
- Comments:
have tried to resolve what I consider biased editing of this article by user Curdle. He seems to claim ownership on this page, and in my opinion is just trying to sanitise. I think he has ulterior motives, and is perhaps being paid to edit. any time I edit, he just deletes what he likes and refuses to discuss first on the relevant talk page. He has also now deleted all his abusive comments from the tall page and all my comments questioning his motives. I have a strong belief he is being paid by someone to edit this page and other pages. This needs to be investigated Majikalex32 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed malformed report. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK- apologies in advance if this is a bit incoherent- its late here, couldnt sleep, came here to find this. Now I am extremely angry. While I am more than happy to defend my edits (preferably after some sleep), the editor who needs investigating is not me. Please check MajikAlexs last 20 or so? edits. They appear to have posted here with this somewhat bizarre edit warring complaint, then started removing and refactoring comments (both theirs and mine) on the Kate Fischer talkpage. They have then cleaned out their own page (yes, I realise its ok to do that, but please just check what has been cleared out) and have been screwing with my talkpage as well.
- They have then come here to refactor their original complaint to add the accusation that I am attempting to conceal said coi accusations, and that I am the one responsible for the disappearing edits. I couldnt quite believe it myself. Curdle (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- No violation, and the reporting editor has now been blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Dr Nobody reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Stale )
- Page
- Irish Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Dr Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "http://staffordmall.com/standardhistory.htm"
- 22:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Anatomy */"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"
- 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Anatomy */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irish Bull Terrier. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Editors / Moderators */ Replying to Dr Nobody (reply-link)"
- Comments:
Doesn't seem wiling to listen and keeps ignoring other editors. When I tried to engage and help them they told me to Please butt out of this page...
, which seems to be an WP:OWN problem if nothing else. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}
13:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Stale Seems to have stopped of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Juanpumpchump reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: )
Page: Lady Amelia Windsor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juanpumpchump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] (and a discussion on their talk page as well [50])
Comments:
I tried to start a discussion on the article talk page, inviting the editor to engage with me on the article talk page by asking them on their personal talk page, and was met with hostility. A conversation began on the talk page but no consensus was made and the editor continued to revert. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Juanpumpchump, while I personally may agree with your removal of contents from the article, the way you've gone about getting it done is highly disruptive. You're liable for a straight block right now, unless you confirm at the soonest that you will (1) refrain from edit warring and will never again cross the WP:3RR line; (2) self-revert your last three consecutive edits to the article and wait for consensus on the talk page before removing the material (I may support you in talk page discussions) (3) stop pointing out other editors' past block logs in your discussions. I'm giving you this last chance to accept these conditions, failing which you will be blocked. Lourdes 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just logged in for the first time today.
No further revisions on the subject from me.
Juanpumpchump (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Libhye reported by User:AveTory (Result: )
Page: Leo Tolstoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Libhye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] [58] [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]
Comments:
The user added the name Lyov (and the supposed Russian analogue Лёв) to the Leo Tolstoy's lead without any discussion, stating that this is how Tolstoy spelled his name and thus it should be included as his original name, with Lev/Лев as alternative spellings (after awhile the lead was turned into this). He links to two sources that briefly mention this fact. I provided him with plenty of RS and Google Books search results as a proof that Tolstoy is known as Lev/Лев and included the Lyov pronounciation as a note (this is how it's also done in the Russian article). Yet the user keeps returning his version, insulting me along the way and basically stating "You're not going to get me to agree to relegate it to a footnote", even after I asked for the Third Opinion and User:Reidgreg agreed with all my edits. Nobody else has shown interest in this matter, only one editor blocked both of us for edit warring at one point with no further involvement in the article editing (everything was immediately reverted after the user had been unblocked). I don't think I have anything left to say, especially taking the user's childish behaviour and the fact that his version of Tolstoy's name is practically unknown. AveTory (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)