Zackmann08 (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 397: | Line 397: | ||
{{ec}} For the record, the use of "FC" in MLS team articles has been an ongoing debate. One community consensus, involving only the Whitecaps, is at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53#Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue]]. It has been discussed in other locations as well, but I can't find those discussions. I thought it was at the league article or the club pages, but it doesn't seem to be there. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
{{ec}} For the record, the use of "FC" in MLS team articles has been an ongoing debate. One community consensus, involving only the Whitecaps, is at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53#Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue]]. It has been discussed in other locations as well, but I can't find those discussions. I thought it was at the league article or the club pages, but it doesn't seem to be there. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Plandu]] reported by [[User:EagleFIre32]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Plandu]] reported by [[User:EagleFIre32]] (Result: EC protection) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ami_Bera}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ami_Bera}} <br /> |
||
Line 420: | Line 420: | ||
[[User:Plandu]] User [[User:EataPi]] offered [[User:Plandu]] numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. [[User:EataPi]] is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as [[User:Plandu]] would like to call them. |
[[User:Plandu]] User [[User:EataPi]] offered [[User:Plandu]] numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. [[User:EataPi]] is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as [[User:Plandu]] would like to call them. |
||
(UTC) |
(UTC) |
||
:'''Result:''' I have put the [[Ami Bera]] page under two weeks of [[WP:ECP|EC protection]]. A BLP article is being vigorously edited by two new [[WP:Single-purpose accounts]], EataPI and EagleFIre32, who are trying to add material that is probably negative, though it's hard to be sure. One of them has now reported at AN3 a long-time editor (11,000 edits) who has never been blocked. Due to the uncertainties of the situation, an EC protection until the midterm election is over seems like the safest bet. This will prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from directly editing the article, though they can still participate on the talk page. The filer of this report, [[User:EagleFIre32]], is the other new SPA. They were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEagleFIre32 recently blocked 24 hours] by [[User:Ponyo]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Ginjuice4445]] reported by [[User:Grayfell]] (Result: Already blocked) == |
== [[User:Ginjuice4445]] reported by [[User:Grayfell]] (Result: Already blocked) == |
Revision as of 16:40, 25 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: Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Saff V. (Result: No action)
Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:[1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First series:
- Second series (these edits were removed by Diannaa because of copy right violation by Stefka Bulgaria):
- Third series:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just after 24 hours and 7 minutes since his first revert, It's violating the soul of 3RR. Seems he was waiting for the allowed 24 hours to finish and then do the revert.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2], [3], [4] and ... .
Comments:
Some days ago, I warned him in his TP, but my warning was removed. Most of his edits are reverts edits and he also committed such edits in other articles relevant to MEK.Saff V. (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Bogus report. All edits have been discussed on the article's Talk page (with even a RfC on Saff V.'s first point). Mainly, this is about myself (and a couple of other editors) objecting to blogs/personal websites/fringe sources used as RS in the article. User Saff V. and Mhhossein have been working hard at trying to justify these insertions, and since this has not worked, now seem to be resorting to reporting me (again). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing four actual reverts within a 24-hour period. Our sourcing rules would normally allow using Maryam Rajavi's personal web site for documenting Rajavi's own views provided no wider conclusions are drawn. (One of Stefa Bularia's edits was this deleted edit from 10/17 which took out a claim about the views of some Syrian opposition leaders which was sourced only to Maryam Rajavi's blog. So its removal is defensible per sourcing). EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: Are you talking about an exemption? Can a user do 3 "defensible" reverts every day? Three consecutive days and 3 reverts in each day, followed by the forth revert coming just minutes after the last day. The last edit is meant to GAME the system. Does the 3RR say : 'Watch your clock and restart reverting just after 24-hour period is finished? --Mhhossein talk 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Using blogs to source BLP information is a no-go - and this is part of what Stefka was removing. Overall in the past few days there has been too much editing and not enough discussion - from both sides here - editing here should slow down, and more issues should be discussed on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: Are you talking about an exemption? Can a user do 3 "defensible" reverts every day? Three consecutive days and 3 reverts in each day, followed by the forth revert coming just minutes after the last day. The last edit is meant to GAME the system. Does the 3RR say : 'Watch your clock and restart reverting just after 24-hour period is finished? --Mhhossein talk 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The reported user can not stop reverting, when it comes to MEK-related articles (see [5], [6], [7] and etc). He has done some more reverts in MEK just after this report. In contrast to what the reported user is trying to show, most, if not all, of his reverts were not after a consensus. As for the RFC discussion which Saff V started himself, Stefka Bulgaria's reverts came before the RFC. The reported user certainly reverts too much and needs to be warned against it. --Mhhossein talk 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is a POV-pushing issue at the MEK article that I've been trying to help fix. This included some insertions by Mhhossein:
- "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
- "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)
- "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."[1]
- "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government."[2] (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)
Etc... Then User:Saff V. started editing the page, mostly supporting Mhhossein's edits (Mhhossein and Saff V. have worked on over 300 pages together). Also, Mhhossein's has been involved in more than a few ANI reports, so there seems to be a pattern here: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
POV-pushing at the MEK page also used to involve user:EoL, who was recently blocked, though there is a pending SPI to verify if he was recently involved in editing the page again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Cult Leader Will Tell Congress: Fight ISIS by Regime Change in Iran", The Nation, 28 April 2015, retrieved 15 September 2016
- ^ Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) Organization fights in Syria, 19 August 2013, retrieved 15 September 2016
- As mentioned above, this is seemingly not a complaint of 3RR violation, but one of long-term edit warring. The diffs supplied at the top of the report by User:Saff V. go back to October 14. Since that date the article has had more than 100 edits. Three editors have been very active during that time. Besides the two adversaries in this AN3 complaint (User:Stefka Bulgaria and User:Saff V.), another user, User:Mhhossein has also made a dozen edits. I'm not about to sort through 100 edits to see which are reverts, who has reverted more or who is ignoring the verdict of the talk page. My advice is to try harder on the talk page with RfCs. Ask for the closing of any RfCs that seem to be already conclusive or exhausted. If the problem continues unabated, the obvious admin action will be a long period of full protection. That would make it harder for everybody to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help EdJohnston, will try harder with RfCs, and take controversial edits to the Talk page, and slow down per Icewhiz's advice (if Mhhossein and Saff V. also follow these suggestions, keeping comments civil, then I think we can work through this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Result: No action, per my statement above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help EdJohnston, will try harder with RfCs, and take controversial edits to the Talk page, and slow down per Icewhiz's advice (if Mhhossein and Saff V. also follow these suggestions, keeping comments civil, then I think we can work through this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Amsgearing reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Both warned)
Page: Ron Stallworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amsgearing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts: (5 within 24 hours, unless you count the first two Undos as one revert, in which case it's still 4)
- [25] (not on the usual issue, but a mindless and incorrect revert within the 24 hours)
- [26]
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
- [30] (next day, after this report was known to him)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire Talk:Ron Stallworth, which includes a 3O, an expired RFC, and an open RFC. When I warned him again, I didn't realize he already had more than 3 reverts in 24 hours; he deleted the warning as 'bullshit'.
Earlier attempt to resolve: When he first reverted on Sept. 9, I reached out on his talk page. Still no reply there.
Sorry to be back here after the page was protected and unprotected. I have made every attempt to find different ways to accommodate the input of users such as those that suggest such an old photo was not appropriate as a lead image, that its quality of the cheerleading photo was maybe not high enough, etc. And to accommodate the input that Category:Ku Klux Klan members was not appropriate for this particular member of the Ku Klux Klan. But Amsgearing just simply reverts every attempt. The talk page shows at least 5 editors suggesting that the headshot is OK, and several saying it's not a good lead image, and Amsgearing and one other opposing it outright (originally on "verifiability" grounds, and most recently trying to get it deleted by challenging its PD status). This editor doesn't know how to see that he has lost his campaign to keep the article free of yearbook images (which would make it free of known usable images). He is now proposing his own version of copyright law on Commons. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Most of that paragraph is outright lies: (1) There are not 5 editors suggesting the headshot is okay - there's 5 against, and only 2 for. (See the aforementioned RfC) (2) there is no "campaign to keep the article free of yearbook images"; that is in Dicklyon's head. (3) I am not "proposing his own version of copyright law on Commons"; this appears to be his latest attempt to smear me.
- Please stop calling me a liar when you interpret things differently. The RFC that showed strong support for the headshot is visible in this version just before the expired RFC tag was removed; let me know if I made an error that somehow prevented it being listed as an RFC in biographies. And I respected your follow-up RFC that indicated that the shot was "too early" in his life to be a suitable lead photo. Your copyright theory that I mention shows up at [32] and [33]. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- The truth? Users Dicklyon and Randykryn have teamed up in order to circumvent the 3RR by adding a picture that the wikipedia community is clearly against adding (see the aforementioned RfC), and reverting my removals of it in turns. As it happens, they're the only two in favor of the picture being added in the RfC. Everyone else is against it. Meanwhile, adding it the first time, and seeing it removed, and then re-adding it without discussion, flies in the face of WP:CYCLE, which I asked repeatedly be observed; they ignored me. Now, they're adding the picture in the face of RfC results that are not going their way. The first "RfC" that Dicklyon mentions does not exist; it was never registered as an RfC, it was never publicized, it did not follow the format of an RfC (no neutral question, no vote counts) and it was not formally closed (which makes sense, since it wasn't an RfC to begin with). I would appreciate if an admin would look at the fact that Dicklyon WP:CANVASSED Randykryn to get his support in this discussion (see this edit), in a position which everyone else clearly disagrees with them, and since then have edit warred non-stop to add an inappropriate picture that no one wants added except Dicklyon. Amsgearing (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I can't believe I didn't notice this before, and maybe it's because compared to Dicklyon I'm relatively inexperienced (although I'm learning A LOT this month) but I see that Dick has been blocked ten times for edit warring in the past. This didn't really shock me, as I've never encountered anyone yet that ignores WP:CYCLE as he does and just edit wars, and gets friend to help him edit war, so the past record makes sense to me. I feel it's relevant to this discussion, as he's also repeatedly tried to intimidate with with warnings and such on my talk page, all the while knowing full well that he's the one making the initial BOLD edit and refusing to DISCUSS when it get reverted. Amsgearing (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've been block free since I came back nearly 3 years ago, in which time I have over 10x as many edits as you. My past is in the past. And I have been active in discussing this issue with you, including inviting a third opinion and holding an RFC; when have I ever refused to discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've thrown WP:CYCLE right in the trash by making an edit, seeing it reverted, and then not discussing it before making that same edit again. Even after an RfC that's clear about the fact that the yearbook photo does not belong on the page, you go and.... put the photo in a different section of the page! Then that gets reverted, and you add THAT again without discussion! What do you think, that you're some kind of Wikipedia dictator that gets to do whatever he wants just because you've made a million edits? Where's that policy written? Why are you ignoring WP:CYCLE? And why do you choose not to respond to that question, instead touting your "10x as many edits"?? It's obvious you haven't learned anything from the 10 blocks except how to bend the rules just enough to not get blocked. Because that's what you're attempting to do right now. Amsgearing (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- More creepiness: Dicklyon has resorted to stalking my previous edits and sending me a very clear message on my talk page that he's going through my history to find a photo that I uploaded. The implied threat is that he'll mess with my contribution if I don't stop fighting his edit warring at Ron Stallworth. He had to go back over 1000 edits in my edit history to find that one. Is this considered normal behavior for an editor? Amsgearing (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here's another shocker - you didn't address the fact that you and RandyKryn teamed up to make 5 reverts within 24 hours in between the two of you - all the same thing, in an effort to trap me into violating 3RR without technically violating it yourself. Congratulations, it worked. Except I'm pretty sure any admin that looks at those edits, and your WP:CANVASing of Randy to help you, will see that you've effectively gamed the system in that way. And surprise surprise, you have no answer for that, and you don't want to talk about it, because you know it's a great example of how you've learned to be a pushy editor and force your edits in without getting blocked. It only took getting blocked 10 times in the past. Thanks for the lesson. I've really learned a lot this month. Unfortunately it's all about the negative side of dealing with certain editors. My first such experience. I can only hope it will be the last. Amsgearing (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did not team up with Randy. I asked his opinion once, some time back, since I know that he is into issues around African Americans and civil rights and such; we usually disagree on style issues (caps, commas before Jr., etc.), so I had no particular expectation that he would take my side here. And the edits I made were not generally reverts. I tried different images, moving to different sections in deference to your RFC about the lead, even smaller size in deference to comments on image quality. And I added a different category from the one you objected to. You reverted everything I tried, each of which was an attempt to respect objections. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've been block free since I came back nearly 3 years ago, in which time I have over 10x as many edits as you. My past is in the past. And I have been active in discussing this issue with you, including inviting a third opinion and holding an RFC; when have I ever refused to discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I can't believe I didn't notice this before, and maybe it's because compared to Dicklyon I'm relatively inexperienced (although I'm learning A LOT this month) but I see that Dick has been blocked ten times for edit warring in the past. This didn't really shock me, as I've never encountered anyone yet that ignores WP:CYCLE as he does and just edit wars, and gets friend to help him edit war, so the past record makes sense to me. I feel it's relevant to this discussion, as he's also repeatedly tried to intimidate with with warnings and such on my talk page, all the while knowing full well that he's the one making the initial BOLD edit and refusing to DISCUSS when it get reverted. Amsgearing (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Result: User:Amsgearing and User:Dicklyon are both warned for edit warring. If either of you adds or removes any photo from this article in the next two weeks you may be blocked, unless you have first proposed the change on the talk page and got consensus for it there. During that time, consider asking for the RfC to be closed. The article was previously placed under full protection but that didn't stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:172.83.40.67 reported by User:Fram (Result: 24 hours)
Page: List of best-selling books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.83.40.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
(note; there were already previous reverts on the same article on 19 and 21 October). User is also edit warring on List of highest-grossing media franchises, Talk:List of best-selling video game franchises(!), and Soundtrack. Edit warring on talk pages to remove comments with sources they don't approve of (including e.g. Variety) indicates that it is rather fruitless to engage them further on talk pages. Fram (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]
Fram (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, although I suspect this is not going to be enough, Lourdes 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, user is now back on same article as User:172.83.40.68 (see [40]). Longer block + page protection may be necessary. Fram (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've applied three months of semiprotection to List of best selling books. No objection to blocks or rangeblocks as necessary to supplement this action. It looks to me that the *.67 editor has been reverting other articles as well. The *.68 guy is probably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked Special:Contributions/172.83.40.0/24 for three months as a web host (Total Server Solutions). Will also leave a note at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Behaviour, commentless blanking of user talk page and edits/edit summaries are very reminiscent of thrice–blocked User:Reberp--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also the names of the edited pages have some overlap. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jorrojorro reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jorrojorro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 03:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 14:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- [41]
- [42]
- [43]
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 07:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Sofia Airport. (TW)"
- 07:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
There has been recent talkpage discussion on this issue at Sofia Airport.
- Comments:
Persistent posting of commercial services, mostly unsourced, contrary to WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and promotional in nature. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for air travel and this editor seems to have no other purpose than this. Charles (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong adding properly sourced future routes into airline destination tables, as a couple of the reverts were. See a brief discussion here: [44]. SportingFlyer talk 01:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is your basis for this claim? It contravenes policy per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and is unencyclopedic and recentist trivia.Charles (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Looking through the Jorrojorro's edit history shows they have made 98 edits, all to airline destination tables. Your warning to the user was for "advertising or promotion" for adding a new route, with citation, which would start next April. Not only is this not "advertising or promotion" but it's exactly in line with the type of edits the other user makes. The whole Sofia Airport page is a bit ridiculous and I don't support Jorrojorro for violating the WP:3RR, but your reasons for reverting cited material don't necessarily have consensus, as the route (with a citation) followed the RfC here: [45]. There was also a very unfocused discussion on the Sofia Airport talk page which I believe a couple users thought meant there wasn't consensus, but there are many articles which contain this information if properly cited. You've also been unwilling to compromise on this exact topic in at least two instances, including User_talk:Charlesdrakew#Unjustified_reversion_of_my_edit_in_Sofia_Airport and one here where I asked you nicely to generally stop: [[46]], so you're clearly aware others disagree with you. If you want to ensure no future routes ever get added again, I would recommend starting a RfC. SportingFlyer talk 11:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is your basis for this claim? It contravenes policy per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and is unencyclopedic and recentist trivia.Charles (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours for long term warring. There is a good faith difference of opinion on whether future route information belongs in these articles. However, the reported editor, User:Jorrojorro, has never posted on an article talk page, doesn't leave any edit summaries and didn't respond to this report. Jorrojorro continued to add his material at 16:21 after being warned for 3RR at 07:30 on 22 October. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:188.108.231.111 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Luzia Woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 188.108.231.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 10:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 09:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 15:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 11:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Luzia Woman */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Italicisation of researchers' names */ new section"
- 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Italicisation of researchers' names */ Name, italicisation comments"
- Comments:
This IP user has been trying to push through the same changes onto the page for a few days now. They have been reverted by multiple editors - I don't know why nobody has warned them before, perhaps because the changes were fairly innocuous. I've tried communicating with them today, but they have not responded to any messages, and have continued to push their changes. I'm up to three reverts on the page now - perhaps a word of advice from an admin might get them to listen? GirthSummit (blether) 11:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this diff, they've just reverted again - that was after I told them I intended to report them here, but before I'd completed the report. GirthSummit (blether) 11:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- And once again... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jay D. Easy reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Warned)
Page: Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jay D. Easy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [47]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]
Comments:
Edit warring without discussion. Jay D. Easy has reverted two editors (Kierzek and myself) and ignored my suggestion that they take the issue to the talk page (in this edit summary [52]). I don't believe a block is necessary, just a reminder from an admin that enforcing WP:MOS is not a valid justification for edit warring, so they should discuss their issues on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Talking to editor on their talk page. Lourdes 15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, this is my first time here. I do not intend for it to become a regular occurrence. Anyways, I do not have confirmation yet, but I have good reason to believe this is based on a misunderstanding. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure Jay D. Easy. Revert your latest edit to the article and continue discussions on the talk page. Lourdes 15:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh wait, I have to revert it? Haha weird, but also not a problem. Give me a sec.Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure Jay D. Easy. Revert your latest edit to the article and continue discussions on the talk page. Lourdes 15:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, this is my first time here. I do not intend for it to become a regular occurrence. Anyways, I do not have confirmation yet, but I have good reason to believe this is based on a misunderstanding. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Warned, or rather, discussed, editor agrees to adhere to BRD. Lourdes 15:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
User:77.4.8.23, User:77.7.54.30, User:177.85.90.33, User:1.10.189.91, User:185.247.136.200 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Protected)
Page: Harry Elmer Barnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 77.4.8.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 77.7.54.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 177.85.90.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1.10.189.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 185.247.136.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [53]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Comments:
IPs, almost certainly a single person using multiple IPs and proxies (see the simularity of their edit summaries), making NPOV changes to this article with no consensus to do so. They have reverted multiple established editors, and have refused to take the suggestion of taking their issues to the talk page. Semi-protection of the article has been requested at WP:RFPP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also to note: the same kind of behavior is going on at Theodor Morell, for which I have also requested semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Both articles have been semi-protected by RegentsPark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- And four IPs used on the two articles blocked as proxies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Drassow reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Southern Rhodesian independence referendum, 1964 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drassow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- [65] (restoring an extremely dubious claim from an inappropriate source (see talk page) removed in this edit a few months ago)
- [66]
- [67]
- [68]
Comments:
I started a discussion on talk and advised the user about WP:BRD, but they continued reverting. Also gave them an opportunity to self-revert prior to reporting but this has not been taken.
It would be good if the dubious text could be removed from the article by a reviewing admin. Cheers, Number 57 18:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)}}
- Note this has become a pattern with Drassow. Previous block history. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Now appears to be a WP:SOCK reverting edits to help Drassow. User:BLDM. ---Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're hilarious, just happened across the war. SPI? BLDM (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Two different accounts with long histories and no prior interactions @Zackmann08:. How is that socking?
- You're hilarious, just happened across the war. SPI? BLDM (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Now appears to be a WP:SOCK reverting edits to help Drassow. User:BLDM. ---Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:DUCK but that's for the admins to decide. Just stating my observations. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Number 57 reported by User:Drassow (Result: Page protected)
Page: Southern Rhodesian independence referendum, 1964 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [69]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
I included information with a citation that all were allowed to vote in the 1964 Rhodesian referendum, though Number 57 simply removes the information, replacing it with unsourced and incorrect information.
I called the user to discuss the issue on the talk page, and explained that a valid source trumps self-research. They proceeded to report me. Drassow (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- No previous version, only 2 reverts, obvious retaliatory report in response to the above. Drassow should be, at minimum, warned not to misuse Wikipedia procedures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious retaliatory report by a user that has previously been blocked. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ad hominiem does not influence the situation at hand @Zackmann08:. Past actions do not influence truthfulness of cited information. Drassow (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious retaliatory report by a user that has previously been blocked. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You also failed to notify Number57.I suggest a speedy close of this request. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)- @Sir Joseph: I did not fail to notify him, check the history of his talk page. He removed the notification I gave him. Drassow (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the clarification. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: Your solution was to remove cited information and lock the article with unsourced and incorrect info? Does that not directly contradict existing rules? It makes the site an authoritative voice on information that cannot be confirmed.
- What I did is expressly allowed by the protection policy (see WP:STABLEVERSION). Also, you should bear in mind that I decided to protect the page, instead of blocking you, which would have been just as correct per policy... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: Your solution was to remove cited information and lock the article with unsourced and incorrect info? Does that not directly contradict existing rules? It makes the site an authoritative voice on information that cannot be confirmed.
- @Salvio giuliano: I don't want to second guess an admin, and I appreciate you protecting the page, but did want to make sure you saw that this is not the first time Drassow has engaged in edit warring because they didn't get their way. Last time they were blocked for 48 hours. As a repeat offender, I would encourage considering a block instead of just protecting the page. This is not a case of a newbie mistake. Just my 2 cents. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Using valid and cited sources is not a mistake. To call yourself curators while showing support for information with absolutely no backing over fact checked work is absolutely abysmal. Just my 2 cents. Drassow (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I considered blocking Drassow, but another edit war was brewing, because another editor was making the same reverts, so I thought that protection was a better tool. In general, I tend to prefer page protection to blocking, because I feel it encourages discussing, especially when the article is not being actively edited ecept for the edit war. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: I agree with the sentiment, but this user seems keen on WP:IDHT. Their comments above definitely indicate that. As I said, I defer to you, but given this users history of edit warring, their instance that they are right and others (including you) are wrong and their attitude in general, protecting the page doesn't seem like it will fix the problem which to me really seems to be a user who insist on getting their way. Anyway, thanks for your work! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: I don't want to second guess an admin, and I appreciate you protecting the page, but did want to make sure you saw that this is not the first time Drassow has engaged in edit warring because they didn't get their way. Last time they were blocked for 48 hours. As a repeat offender, I would encourage considering a block instead of just protecting the page. This is not a case of a newbie mistake. Just my 2 cents. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Grayfell reported by User:Ginjuice4445 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [72]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]
Talk:Gab (social network)#Bias against the company
Comments:
The introduction to this article currently states a one-liner that reads "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." The reason that this is the case is because Gab, the social network, has a policy that it will not ban any speech from its site which is permitted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a consequence the site attracts all manner of users, including right-wing refugees from mainstream platforms. I have attempted to explain this background, with adequate citations, on the page, numerous times and in several different ways. Grayfell, rather than commenting on the contribution, making minor amendments or asking for clarifications on some citations, simply blanks it. WP:Stonewalling. This is not the first instance of Grayfell WP:Stonewalling information he disagrees with that has been brought to admins' attention this week. (Link.) I believe Grayfell is letting his own bias get in the way of actually typing up an unbiased article. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've made three reverts, while Ginjuice4445 has made four, for which they have been properly warned. This isn't a good forum for discussing content issues, and there is already an active discussion on the article's talk page. I've contributed to that discussion, and have explained why the proposed edits are inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Each "revert" I have made has been to respond to an erasure of my well-sourced contributions. Each time I included modified, new, substantially changed language in attempt to reach a consensus position and respond to criticism. Every time I do this, you blank the contribution on the basis that you disagree with the conclusions of the sources. You have done this before on that page and elsewhere. If you're not comfortable with people reporting it, stop doing it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Filer blocked 24 hours. There were four reverts by Ginjuice4445 on 24 October. There was an additional revert on 25 October after this report was filed. The reverts seem intended to remove the plain statement quoted above, "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." though in some cases a qualified version of that statement is allowed to remain inside another paragraph. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Amisom reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: )
Page: The Partner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amisom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [77]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [78] (es:
rv, going to explain on talkpage in a moment)
) - [79] (es:
Per WP:BRD, you amended a version of this page which had been stable for seven months, your change was contested, you need to gain a consensus before redoing it.
) - [80] (es:
OK. Here's a short, policy-compliant plot summary as a placeholder until someone can do something better.
) - [81] (es:
Last warning. Discuss on the talkpage before making contested edits to the page. See WP:3RR: you've done your three reverts now
)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]
Diff of 3RRNB notice: [84]
Comments:
- Found the page for this book was blank. It was blanked by Amisom on 8 March 2017, and blanked again by him on 1 May 2017. The edit summary both times simply said "
entirely synthesis
". - I re-added the plot, and then added a "Longplot" tag.
- Amisom then posts a comment to the talk page regarding the page blankings, and included a list of items (5 in total) in the plot he found problematic.
- When asked why he didn't just just fix it, he claimed he "didn't have the time or resources".
- After only a single comment, he abruptly ended the discussion and again blanked the page.
- I reverted, and encouraged him to continue discussing.
- He again blanks the page, starts an RfC (?) and only then returned to talk page, but at that point he was not interested in a resolution.
- He then adds a short blurb to the plot which he called; "placeholder until someone can do something better."
- I then edited the original plot, to remove the concerns he listed and some other content as well, and then added the improved version to the page.
- He again reverted, back to his short, "place holding" blurb, now claiming that through some twisted interpretation of BRD, I am not not allowed to edit the page unless I get consensus first, and at the same time, claiming that I'm at 3RR, (though I'm only at 2RR, the second of which always to add the improved version, ...unless he counts adding the longplot tag as a revert). - wolf 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment from Amisom - as the diffs numbers 2 and 3 above were consecutive (see [85]) there has been no violation of the 3RR. (Alternatively, diff number 3 was not a revert at all; I was adding material and did not undo any other editor's edits in diff number 3.) In fact @Thewolfchild: has reverted precisely three times in the last 24 hours:
- Until he came along today, the page had been stable for almost two years. He made a change; I contested it; then he kept reverring back to his versison. THat violates WP:BRD. He is very disruptive and there is currently an RfC in progress on the article talkpage. Thewolfchild has so far failed to participate in it. Amisom (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Until I came along, the page had been blank for almost two years. That's not "stable", that's simply "unnoticed". Along with that, I'm thinking you are perhaps just not clear on the policy, instead of trying to deceive any admins here; my "first revert" was the first edit to that page in the last seven months. It "reverted" your blanking from way back then, so that's a little outside the window, and as for your "consecutive edits", the policy says "any edit to the disputed content within 24 hours". All four of your edits are inside the window. Oh, and the RfC? You mean the improper one you just added and are the the only participant of? - wolf 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn’t blank. That’s a lie. It contained some content but no plot summary. Your first edit today was a revert (hence the “undo” in the subject line). So was your second edit. So was your third edit. Yes, I’ve made four edits in the last 24 hours, but one of them wasn’t a revert. It isn’t a ‘3 Edit Rule’, it’s a 3 Revert Rule. There’s nothing improper about the RfC. Anything else I can help you with? Amisom (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just 'reverts', edits count as well. And, yes... the page was essentially blank. After your last edit, it was barely a stub, and you left it that way, for months. Do you really consider that an improvement? Do you consider that ridiculous statement you wrote as a "place-holder for the plot" an improvement?
- "
Anything else I can help you with?
" - You could stop asking wp:dickish-type questions like that... that would be a start. Next, you could re-think you remove-revert-delete at all costs attitude in name of "wp:or". It doesn't give you a free pass to edit war. And there other ways to deal with certain types of content. It's the reason why we have things like tags and WikiProjects and such. - wolf 00:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)- @Thewolfchild: Erm... no, it is just reverts. Read WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. One of the four edits you listed [89] did not undo (in whole or in part) any other editor's actions. So I made only three reverts.
- I'm glad you've conceded, now, that the page was not "blank" but was "essentially blank" – which as you correctly point out, is called a stub and is not unusual here on Wikipedia when a large amount of non-policy-compliant content has to be removed.
- Yes, I do consider the removal of policy non-compliant content to be an improval. Yes, I do consider a short policy-compliant plot summary to be better than no plot summary. Yes, I do consider your use of the word "ridiculous" to be a lame ad hominem jibe that served no purpose other than to be insulting.
- If you have any further questions I'm happy to try to help. Amisom (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn’t blank. That’s a lie. It contained some content but no plot summary. Your first edit today was a revert (hence the “undo” in the subject line). So was your second edit. So was your third edit. Yes, I’ve made four edits in the last 24 hours, but one of them wasn’t a revert. It isn’t a ‘3 Edit Rule’, it’s a 3 Revert Rule. There’s nothing improper about the RfC. Anything else I can help you with? Amisom (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Until I came along, the page had been blank for almost two years. That's not "stable", that's simply "unnoticed". Along with that, I'm thinking you are perhaps just not clear on the policy, instead of trying to deceive any admins here; my "first revert" was the first edit to that page in the last seven months. It "reverted" your blanking from way back then, so that's a little outside the window, and as for your "consecutive edits", the policy says "any edit to the disputed content within 24 hours". All four of your edits are inside the window. Oh, and the RfC? You mean the improper one you just added and are the the only participant of? - wolf 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I came across this from requests for page protection. I have fully protected the article for one month, which should be long enough to let the RFC run. If the disputants resolve their differences before then, let me know and I'll unprotect it. If any other admin disagrees with the protection or the length of the protection, feel free to unprotect or change the length. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:BoogieFreeman reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Alphonso Davies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- BoogieFreeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 18:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Every football club has "FC" in their name, but is regularly dropped when referencing it. Reverted "II" to "2""
- 16:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "It is common for people worldwide to drop the “FC”."
- 10:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "the suffix "FC" does not need to be included. Restored his CONCACAF record."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alphonso Davies. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Use of "FC" */ R"
- 20:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Use of "FC" */ r"
- Comments:
- BoogieFreeman blocked for 24 hours.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For the record, the use of "FC" in MLS team articles has been an ongoing debate. One community consensus, involving only the Whitecaps, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53#Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue. It has been discussed in other locations as well, but I can't find those discussions. I thought it was at the league article or the club pages, but it doesn't seem to be there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Plandu reported by User:EagleFIre32 (Result: EC protection)
Page: Ami Bera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plandu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ami_Bera&diff=865440422&oldid=865440038 [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]
Comments:
Plandu continues to use his wording even though it appears in talk that there have been a reasonable effort to address his concerns and ample time was given to address the last compromise solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleFIre32 (talk • contribs) 00:45, October 25, 2018 (UTC)
- I attempted to resolve this through the talk page. I attempted to get a WP:THIRDOPINION, but none was forthcoming. Edits continued to be made that made the situation worse. I should have gotten administrators involved earlier and more aggressively, but I was hopeful that I could persuade User:EataPi without involving them, as I had to with User:EagleFIre32 Plandu (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018
User:Plandu User User:EataPi offered User:Plandu numerous explanations and rebuttals along with a very good compromising solution. User:EataPi is correct in their interpretation of the bills as pro 2nd Ammendment bills not Gun control bills as User:Plandu would like to call them. (UTC)
- Result: I have put the Ami Bera page under two weeks of EC protection. A BLP article is being vigorously edited by two new WP:Single-purpose accounts, EataPI and EagleFIre32, who are trying to add material that is probably negative, though it's hard to be sure. One of them has now reported at AN3 a long-time editor (11,000 edits) who has never been blocked. Due to the uncertainties of the situation, an EC protection until the midterm election is over seems like the safest bet. This will prevent anyone with less than 500 edits from directly editing the article, though they can still participate on the talk page. The filer of this report, User:EagleFIre32, is the other new SPA. They were recently blocked 24 hours by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Ginjuice4445 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Already blocked)
- Page
- Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 03:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) ""
- 00:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865442581 by Grayfell (talk) Amply explained on talk page - if you undo am filing for mediation."
- 00:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865441907 by Grayfell (talk) It's not whitewashing, it's well-cited information to discuss the subject matter from a WP:NPOV. Note the numerous footnotes. Already on the talk page in "Bias against the company.""
- 23:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865429417 by Ravensfire (talk) Pulling the whole edit is inappropriate. My edit was adequately cited, the old text is one-sided contrary to WP:NPOV and did not reflect at all the free speech element, only criticisms of the site. Have pared back the edit to try to reach a consensus"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 01:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 05:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 06:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Bias against the company */ Reply"
- Comments:
This editor seems dead-set on changing the article to downplay very well-sourced information. Despite warnings. Ginjuice has also been forum shopping [96][97] instead of following through on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – Already blocked 24 hours per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Spshu reported by User:Amaury (Result: )
- Page
- Freaky Friday (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865684619 by IJBall (talk) yes 1/2 the sources are Disney (Through various sites) which is primary; notability as no coverage outside of entertainment news websites"
- 16:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865548815 by IJBall (talk) you too are removing sourced information, second it is a primary source removed with the following source supporting the info"
- 16:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865548241 by Amaury (talk) unexplained removal of Disney Theatrical Productions involvement in movie & 1st co-prod. w/DisCh. & source for other coprodco."
- 16:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865543040 by Amaury (talk) both specify that 8./10 is the premiere date so it is redunate"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Amaury's BRD request */ Reply"
- 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Amaury's BRD request */ Reply"
- 23:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Amaury's BRD request */ If you can't understand simple concepts, you shouldn't be editing here."
- Comments:
User has been here long enough to understand how to comply with WP:BRD, a policy, and refuses to do so. Edits in turn are bordering on disruptive. They are also sending out bogus warnings to myself and IJBall here and here. And when their inappropriate warning was removed from my talk page, they went ahead and reintroduced it here. Their edit warring warning can be found here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- In addition to all of that, they've probably earned blocks for WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:POINT-y edits as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Response:
First those are not my reverts, but Amaury's and IJBall, but they refused to wait for any discussion, which takes some time to type up. A) WP:BRD is not policy and I did start the discussion not either of them. And I even told them I was doing so as they continued their revert fest of sourced information that I added. Amaury expressly cherry picks various guidelines/policies (PRIMARY), canvassed IJBall expressly in Bad Faith in an apparently WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and request other of his so called "Colleagues" [User talk:Geraldo Perez#Discussion at Talk:Freaky Friday (2018 film)#Amaury's BRD request|to join in]. IJBall issues insults. Both of them removed sourced material not related to any other issue that I added for no reason. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1)Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Aumary interprets PRIMARY ("2) Those come from the film's own credits and do not need to be sourced per WP:PRIMARY.") such that he does not have to follow W:V policy thus meets sign 2 of DISRUPTSIGNS: "fails to cite sources". Aumary disregards my explanation of changes in edit summary (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4), demanding further discussion, which was granted and at the talk page - further disregarding explanations even quotes from various policy pages (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), thus we are here. @Erik: called out Aumary for personal hostility to which Aumary feels is OK. Spshu (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Mandolinryan reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: )
Page: Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mandolinryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Paisley_and_the_Southern_Grass&type=revision&diff=858941099&oldid=858938894
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]
Comments:
- This user clearly is a member of the band who is attempting to WP:OWN the page. The comments in their edit summaries indicates this fact. They have continued to break the page and remove referenced material. Multiple warnings have been placed on their talk page which they have ignored. When responding to comments on the article talk page they are signing as the band, not as their individual user further showing the clear WP:COI. Also going to ping @Anne Delong: as they were one of the parties that warned this user. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please also see this diff where the user left a message on my talk page stating
You repetitively say your reasoning is that I have not cited my sources. That's because I am the source. I am a family member of the subject of this page and I work for him.
. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please also see this diff where the user left a message on my talk page stating