|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. |
||||
|
||||
Definition of edit warring | ||||
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than 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. | ||||
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) | ||||
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 the 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. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:Cosmicgirls reported by User:Random86 (Result: )
- 2 User:Codename Lisa reported by User:2601:5C2:100:9A1:D8FA:721C:BB21:1DB5 (Result: )
- 3 User:Andreastewart reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: Indef)
- 4 User:Redmen007 reported by User:BlackAmerican (Result: blocked)
- 5 User:Sureshpandey reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: )
- 6 User:Eric Corbett reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: Stale)
- 7 User:CFCF reported by User:Ratel (Result: )
- 8 User:99johnsaint reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked indefinitely, sockpuppet)
- 9 User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )
- 10 User:Qblue53 reported by User:Banedon (Result: )
- 11 User:2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE reported by User:SimonP (Result: Semi)
- 12 User:XavierGreen reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )
- 13 User:Shishirkc reported by User:Sitush (Result:Indeffed)
- 14 User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:AldezD (Result: )
User:Cosmicgirls reported by User:Random86 (Result: )
- Page
- Pink Tape ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Cosmicgirls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC) "An expression is not a source and it has not been backed up. Stop spreading misinformation about f(x). Art Pop was never included on this wiki until recently and it shouldn't be here."
- 05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC) "Is not a clear source, but an expression and is in reference to something that the user doesn't seem to understand."
- 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC) "Somebody keeps including misinterpreted information. Claiming "queens of art-pop" is an actual source when it is in reference to the album concept and the art film accompanying the album."
- 13:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC) ""Queens of art-pop" is not a source and it is an incredibly tiny source that has not been confirmed."
- 13:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC) "Pop Matters is not a reliable source. Pop Matters is in fact the only source provided. No other music critic has labelled Pink Tape as art-pop because if it was, it would be factually incorrect and misleading."
- 13:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC) "Please provide a source for including art-pop as a genre because it has never been listed as such."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pink Tape. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Discussion was attempted at my talk page and User talk:HĐ, but Cosmicgirls doesn't seem to understand no one is agreeing with him/her and continues to edit war. Random86 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cosmicgirls just reverted again, after being told to come to consensus first by Ymblanter. Random86 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Codename Lisa reported by User:2601:5C2:100:9A1:D8FA:721C:BB21:1DB5 (Result: )
Page: Apache HTTP Server ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Please block User:Codename Lisa for violation of 3RR. The user has been warned but has chosen to remove the warning and continue edit warring.
2601:5C2:100:9A1:D8FA:721C:BB21:1DB5 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- If this were filed by a user in good standing, the report could have some merit. But since you are obviously not a user in good standing, and it is clear that you made two reverts just to bring Codename Lisa to 3RR, I do not think the case has any perspective, except for, possibly, well, blocking the filer.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, this looks like a valid report to me. Codename Lisa has reverted what appears to be 4 different editors, 84.217.184.245, Faramir1138, 67.233.69.221 and 2601:5c2:100:9a1:f543:4b01:b848:9322 (though I concede I can't tell if some of the IPs are the same person), claimed that "Alphabetical sorting is evil; it almost always violates WP:DUE" even though WP:DUE doesn't actually say that, chastised other editors with claims they "should should read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing"[7][8] even though CL isn't doing any more talking they are and personally attacked 2601 as a "well-known troll and edit warrior".[9] CL even reverted[10] 2601's sensible edit [11] reordering the list of operating systems supported by Apache to start with Linux rather than Windows. No matter how you slice it, this just isn't what you'd call model behavior. CL is an experienced editor and should know better and behave better. Msnicki (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- 2601:5c2:100:9a1:f543:4b01:b848:9322 is indeed a well-known troll, IP-hopper and edit warrior who hounds CL. His various IPs been blocked several times. (See THIS.) Used to hound me too. The correct response to these people is WP:DFTT. This troll is not here to build an encyclopedia. Trying anything civil with him is just a slow torture for the person who does this. Give CL some credit; being hounded for three years is an accomplishment in itself. Fleet Command (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, this looks like a valid report to me. Codename Lisa has reverted what appears to be 4 different editors, 84.217.184.245, Faramir1138, 67.233.69.221 and 2601:5c2:100:9a1:f543:4b01:b848:9322 (though I concede I can't tell if some of the IPs are the same person), claimed that "Alphabetical sorting is evil; it almost always violates WP:DUE" even though WP:DUE doesn't actually say that, chastised other editors with claims they "should should read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing"[7][8] even though CL isn't doing any more talking they are and personally attacked 2601 as a "well-known troll and edit warrior".[9] CL even reverted[10] 2601's sensible edit [11] reordering the list of operating systems supported by Apache to start with Linux rather than Windows. No matter how you slice it, this just isn't what you'd call model behavior. CL is an experienced editor and should know better and behave better. Msnicki (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hello, Msnicki.
- First let me prove it to you that it is true. Excerpt from a the SPI case:
-
Postscript to the above: I have now found that the 2600:1003:... IP addresses listed above both belong to a range with a very extensive history of vandalism and block-evasion, with many blocks in the past, so I have placed a range block covering both the IP addresses listed here. However, it is a very large range, so I have blocked for only two weeks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Second, what is the proper response to harassment? Is there any? It is very easy to come to WP:ANEW and judge others and label their actions as "edit warring", but put in their places can you handle the argument any better? (If yes, how?)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- With all due respect, "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is an exemption to WP:3RR. But, yes, if I did this to you instead of 2601, any admin must block me on sight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You reverted four different editors. Did you think all four were banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users? I understand that you think you have proof that some (all?) of the editors you reverted were banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, but honestly, you didn't prove it to me. The quote you supplied refers to 2600:1003:... but that's not the IP range of any of the four editors. Maybe they're the same, maybe they're not. I have no way of knowing. Setting aside that none of your edit remarks identify your actions as reverting banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, if you thought this was a case of block evasion, you should have taken it to WP:ANI or WP:SPI to get these new IPs blocked. Edit warring was not the proper response. Sorry. I like you, I know that you're a valuable contributor and I'm not arguing that you should get a block (unless you really are intransigent in defending the indefensible, suggesting you would do it again). I do think you should acknowledge this was not the proper response and commit to doing better next time. Msnicki (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sure, I will remember this case and try something else next time... at least in regard to our three friends who got caught in the crossfire. But reverting is a natural thing in Wikipedia. I made some of my best friends here after getting reverted. Let's ignore the 2600:1003:... for a moment. I did two reverts against three editors who made zero protest. He who is silent is taken to consent. IMHO, the person who performs a counter-revert, i.e. reinstates the disputed revision, has the definite responsibility to engage in talking, i.e. either respond to the talk page or start the thread himself. But... had the counter-reverting editor been a registered user, I'd have called him to discussion myself. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor cannot be effectively communicated with. Let's hope, next time there is a more friendly situation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- An admin should consider re-blocking the /36 range per this block log. This time around, a three-month block should be considered. (Last time it was for one month). I'm leaving a ping for User:JamesBWatson. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename MeatCommand/Archive. The original User:Codename MeatCommand was blocked indef for harassment in 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Ymblanter:If this were filed by a user in good standing... My apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your remarks, but your statement appears to show a bias against those who choose to edit without an account and that use DHCP. If am mistaken, can you please explain why you think that I am not in good standing?
-
- you made two reverts just to bring Codename Lisa to 3RR... I neither violated 3RR nor forced CL to do so. CL was reminded of the rules and alternatives, yet chose the revert again.
-
- @EdJohnston:An admin should consider re-blocking the /36 range... I hope this not on my account for two reasons 1) I don't believe that I have exhibited or threatened to exhibit any behavior which requires a block 2) My IP address is not in 2600:1003::0/36 (2600:1003::0:0:0:0 to 2600:1003::ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff)
-
- 2601:5C2:100:9A1:6577:5F85:9CD:4A14 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since I have been pinged, I have looked into this, and the conclusions I have come to are these:
- Comments above are made above as though it were clear that some or all of the edits that Codename Lisa has been reverted are by someone evading blocks, and specifically that the editor in question is the one who used to be called "Codename MeatCommand" and/or the one who has been blocked in the range 2600:1003:B000:0:0:0:0:0/36. Is there any actual evidence that this is the same person? Nobody has presented any evidence, and just assuming that it is the same person, without evidence, is not helpful. (The recent edits from 67.233.69.221 and from the IP addresses in the range 2601:5C2:100:9A1:0:0:0:0/64 geolocate to Virginia, while a couple of sample IP addresses in the existing blocked range 2600:1003:B000:0:0:0:0:0/36 geolocate to New York. Close enough that it could be the same person, but not so close as to make it probable.)
- If there is good evidence that Codename Lisa's reverts were reverting an editor evading a block, then that is fine. However, if there is no such evidence, but only an assumption or impression that it may be so, then she was edit-warring, continued to do so despite a warning, and has not given any good reason for doing so. If that is the case, then there is no reason why she should not have been blocked for it. Even in the message beginning "Sure, I will remember this case and try something else next time..." she goes on to say things which amount to something close to "...but I was right all the same", and expresses opinions which are not supported by policy. Since blocks are intended to be preventive, and since she has stated that she will "try something else next time", there is no case for a belated block now, but she should regard herself as warned that after this any edit-warring may lead to an immediate block without further warning. She should bear in mind that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi.
- I have two reasons to believe it's the same editor:
- 1. Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP
- 2. Behavior
-
-
-
- For #1, I am keeping a list of IPs belonging to this violator. It is once presented (and culled down) in the SPI case linked above. As for #2, the behavior, bear with me: First, this person is clearly what you'd call a Wikipedia veteran; he knows about {{uw-3rr}}, {{tq}}, and {{Ping}}; he knows about the noticeboards, the 3RR rule, and the procedure. Clearly a veteran. Yet this veteran didn't attempt any form of positive communication (even a rude one), something no one else up until this day has failed to do. Second, I have seen this erroneous use of </br> and inline parenthetical listing before.
-
-
-
- As for changing my behavior, that's true. It is my intention never to resort to exemptions of 3RR even while encountering this person. I also plan to be more communicative in my future disputes. Emerging unblocked from an ANEW case isn't enough; I want people to love me. I haven't come to Wikipedia to be an officially supported bully, you know.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I concur, including concurring with your disappointment with CL's remarks about "remembering" this event. CL ping-ponged between a changing set of excuses about being harassed and reverting blocked users, none of it cited at the time in her edit summaries and none of it supported by any evidence. I was disappointed that even as CL claimed to have learned from the event, she continued to claim that her edit warring was okay because they started it (perhaps, but they didn't violate WP:3RR), she didn't know how to "communicate" with the other editors (talk pages don't work anymore?) and that only one of the editors she reverted complained. It only takes one! It doesn't even have to be one of the editors she's reverted. Edit warring is edit warring. I fundamentally don't believe I heard anything approaching a clear admission that she had violated WP:3RR and did not have a valid reason. Instead, I continued to hear excuses. The mistakes people remember are the ones you refuse to admit. I didn't expect to support a block but given her last response to me, I would. It should go on her record. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Stale Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a prosecotur's office.Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Ymblanter: Objection! You've made prejudicial and apparently false and unfounded claims above that the IP editor was not in "good standing" and never responded to the editor you maligned. You are simply NOT the right person to close this. Admins are expected to display far better judgment, closing discussion only if they can be neutral. It's obvious you cannot. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment – As a third-party observer here, I find it convenient that the DHCP accounts that reported this notice and commented later on only have an edit history that deals with this issue. While the reason for this from a technical perspective is understandable, we have no way to scrutinize the editor(s) in question. I will say it's highly suspicious that when Codename Lisa reverted an edit from a month ago Faramir1138, all of sudden we have an IP address and two DHCP's challenging that reversion, all of which have no obvious editing history in the article (disclaimer: I only checked as far back as January 2012). Why the interest all of a sudden? I'm not condoning Codename Lisa's actions, as experienced editors should be aware of when they are crossing a particular threshold, but the level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies/guidelines displayed by this anonymous editor makes the activity here very suspicious to say the least. Also as a side note, the 3RR warning left on Codename Lisa's page was a generic template by an editor involved in the edit war, which doesn't sit well with the advice not to do so at WP:3RR#Handling of edit-warring behaviors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claim that the IP editor reporting the complaint is "experienced". Notice that the "diffs" supplied at the top aren't diffs at all. They're links to particular revisions. An experienced editor would get this right. Further, even if they are experienced, so what? It's not relevant. We allow anonymous editing and anonymous editors are entitled to the same respect as anyone else and to be judged only on what the contribute, not based on some bias that if you're an IP editor, you're likely up to no good. Specifically in this case, not some other case you might like to connect simply because it also involved an IP editor, this IP editor did nothing wrong. Nothing. And neither did the other 3 editors CL reverted. You're simply throwing bias into this and that is just not helpful. Msnicki (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's not bias, nor am I mistreating or disrespecting anonymous editors. I'm simply pointing out "reasonable doubt" that this edit was challenged in a short period of time by three different editors, none of which have a verifiable history of editing this article. Also, in an article that averages 5-10 edits per month, this all happened in a short span of 2 days. For me, that moves this beyond a mere coincidence. The point of my comment was to express an opinion that this activity at the very least is questionable. It is not likely to have drawn the attention of three different editors who felt compelled to agree with a change in a low-traffic article. It's certainly possible, but based on this specific situation, it seems somewhat unlikely. Feel free to disagree, but don't mistake my opinion for bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also as an additional point of clarification, I never referred to the IP editor as "experienced". Like you did in an earlier post, I was referring to Codename Lisa when I used that term. In regard to the IP editor, I was simply noting their level of familiarity with WP policies & guidelines. Why does that matter? If someone is attempting to game the system, such familiarity would allow them to do a better job of it. I'm not throwing that accusation out there, but it's worth noting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Codename Lisa refers to "Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP". None of the edits she recently reverted are from any IP range that has been mentioned as having been involved before, as far as I can see, and if they have been involved then she needs to show that they have, not just say "IP range" and expect us to accept that. I have already pointed out above that the IP ranges she reverted recently geolocate to a different place than the earlier range which has been mentioned in this discussion, and although I didn't bother to mention it, I also found that they are from a different ISP. So Lisa, can you elaborate on "Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP"? Specifically, can you tell us what ISP, what geolocation, what IP range, and preferably also give us some diffs to show both old and new edits in the relevant range? Also, giving specific IP addresses would help. If this involved only IPv4 addresses, it would be easy to check the whole editing history from a range, but as far as I know there is still no IPv6 range contributions tool, so that it is difficult to check editing history from a range unless there is some further information to help narrow it down, such as specific IP addresses, specific pages edited, or talk page posts to the relevant IP addresses. You say you are "keeping a list of IPs belonging to this violator", so it should be easy for you to share that information with us. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Andreastewart reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: Indef)
Page: Canadian Association for Equality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreastewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Comments:
This user seems hell-bent on returning to a 3-month-old version of the page that was the product of both sockpuppetry and (likely) COI editing. They've been asked to engage on the talk page and to stop reverting, but so far their only edits are to restore that old version of the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- User has made several more reverts since being notified of this discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is probably another sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JimSmith123/Archive. Past attempts to negotiate with these editors have not been successful, so an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Redmen007 reported by User:BlackAmerican (Result: blocked)
Page: St. John's University (New York City) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redmen007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [22] 03:30, 8 May 2016
- [23] 05:21, 8 May 2016
- [24] 21:56, 8 May 2016
- [25] 22:34, 8 May 2016
- [26] 22:44, 8 May 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] [28]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] Said to take this to the talk page in the comment section
Comments:
- I've just reverted Redmen's removal again. They are still edit-warring after this report was filed. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. BlackAmerican was also edit-warring. At least they stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Sureshpandey reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: )
Page: Ila Pant ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sureshpandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]
Comments:
The user User:Sureshpandey is violating and does not understand Wikipedia:Ownership of content, he has claimed previosly that he works in Pant family office so there is clearly WP:CONFLICT. User:Sureshpandey is posting entirely original research and images in Ila Pant and other pant family articles K. C. Pant and Govind Ballabh Pant while working in their office. I have tried to explain him the wikipedia policies in GB Pant talk page here --> [[37]] .. but he won't listen and currently doing edit warring and POV pushing on Ila Pant article. Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Eric Corbett reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: Stale)
Page: Nuckelavee ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) has added the word "unsophisticated" to the article in violation of an earlier RfC: [38]. He reverts all attempts of removing this, and violated 3RR in those attempts here, by making the same revert 6 times in 24H:
bloodofox (talk · contribs) then tried to tag the article as POV, but Eric Corbett reverted that as well, twice, for a total of 8 reverts in 24H, 6 of which occured in less than 15 minutes.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Eric Corbett is a long established user who doesn't need warning. But it has been pointed out that he has been edit warring multiple times on the talk page, by several editors.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nuckelavee#Post-RfC:_Solving_POV_issues
Comments:
Eric Corbett is in addition frequently rude, and refuses to discuss the issue in a constructive manner:
--OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please also note OpenFuture has been gaming the system. Clearly indicating "using my last 3RR for this" then waiting and starting again here and here. The RfC was "Should the term "simple islanders" be used ..." - please read the comments as the word "unsophisticated" and several others were suggested by commentators. And also note Eric has not edited for over 12 hours now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I was reverting a vandal who refused to interact constructively, but stopped after three reverts (even though reverting vandalism doesn't count towards the 3RR rule) to prove good faith. How is that "gaming the system"?
- Yes, one user suggested "unsophisticated" early in the discussion, before the RfC. Nobody suggested that later or during the RfC, and several pointed out in the RfC that pejoratives like this was not acceptable. Multiple editors have pointed out after Eric Corbett's changes that "unsophisticated" is not OK. This is not a content dispute, there has been an RfC whose result was unanimous, there is a clear consensus, and Eric Corbett is violating it and edit warring to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is the second time you have referred to Eric's edits as vandalism, which is clearly unacceptable - first time can be seen here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is vandalism. He is intentionally edit warring against a unanimous RfC. There is no good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not alter your comments after they have been replied to [53] SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is vandalism. He is intentionally edit warring against a unanimous RfC. There is no good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is the second time you have referred to Eric's edits as vandalism, which is clearly unacceptable - first time can be seen here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to raise the issue of inflammatory language used after only two reversions here, where "edit-warring" is used against Eric Corbett. This could not have helped the situation at all, it happened right at the start of this sorry situation, and I think OpenFuture needs to reflect upon this a little. DDStretch (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- How cute—it's someone else's fault that Corbett's editwarring against the consensus of an RfC that was unanimous against him. Why not stop beating around the bush and just declare, "Corbett gets to do whatever he wants, so stop reporting him"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is by no means "the start" of this sorry situation, it has been going on for a long time, with edits like these: [54], [55], [56], [57].
- Directly before I asked Eric Corbett to stop edit warring he first made a change saying "change back if you don't like it", which I changed back, because it violated the RfC, which he then immediately reverted with "Don't do that again". He also later, followed that up with "I wasn't talking to you". He had also, just before I made the revert you link to, called my arguments on the talk-page "Unadulterated rubbish".
- So, I do not, even on further reflection, think I'm the one using inflammatory language here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:CFCF reported by User:Ratel (Result: )
Page: Suicide bag ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
There is quite a lively discussion going on, which I started on the talk page. I believe we must solve the issue whether it is neutral, due, and policy-abiding to include primary sourced for controversial statements. There have also risen concerns about misrepresenting sources [64] Carl Fredik 💌 📧 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, no real excuse for edit warring then? Ratel (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- there should always be [65]WP:CONSENSUS , CFCF was editing in the best interest of the article (I would have done the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- So you'd break the rules too, huh? Figures. Ratel (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts[66] he did not have more than 3!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're leaving off a sentence, " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --Lo te xendo (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts[66] he did not have more than 3!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- So you'd break the rules too, huh? Figures. Ratel (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- there should always be [65]WP:CONSENSUS , CFCF was editing in the best interest of the article (I would have done the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:99johnsaint reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked indefinitely, sockpuppet)
- Page
- St. John's University (New York City) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 99johnsaint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 23:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 22:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Rather than edit warring, this looks more like straight blanking of page content. User has already been warned for unexplained blanking of content. I'm actively monitoring. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )
- Page
- Chile at the 2016 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) to 04:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 03:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Lightweight double sculls doesn't have a quarterfinal phase."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Chile 2016 Olympics */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user has been warned multiple times abut going against MOS (ie separating the men and women athletes, when they should be on one table) here and here
I am sick of this user behaving like he owns all of these pages and the editing must be done according to his standards. CAN ACTION PLEASE BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT AGAINST ME? I'M NOT ABUSING MY EDITS OKAY! WHY DO YOU KEEP ACCUSING ME ON EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M EDITING? CAN YOU PLEASE STOP ACCUSING ME ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE PAGES? IT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED BULLYING AND ASSUMPTION AGAINST GOOD FAITH. I'M CORRECTING AND MADE SOME OF THE CHANGES, and then suddenly, YOU KEPT ON REVERTING WITHOUT CAREFULLY LOOKING AT OTHER UPDATES. Lightweight double sculls doesn't indeed have a QUARTERFINAL PHASE for both men and women, only single sculls do. But looking at the men's lightweight double sculls that you reverted, it contains a quarterfinal phase, while the women doesn't. WHAT SEEMS TO BE YOUR PROBLEM? Stop telling me that it's against MOS (blah blah) as your main reason. It's irritating and stressful to hear that. I don't even understand why do you have to file a complaint against me on edit warring. This is for the nth time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG. Stop squabbling the pair of you. And frankly in this case it doesn't look like a 3RR violation anyway given that the edits are correcting an error - Basement12 (T.C) 07:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, Basement12. I'm already fed up of his accusations against me contributing to the WikiProject Olympics. Looks like he might want to remove me from the user list of the project. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG. Stop squabbling the pair of you. And frankly in this case it doesn't look like a 3RR violation anyway given that the edits are correcting an error - Basement12 (T.C) 07:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT AGAINST ME? I'M NOT ABUSING MY EDITS OKAY! WHY DO YOU KEEP ACCUSING ME ON EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M EDITING? CAN YOU PLEASE STOP ACCUSING ME ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE PAGES? IT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED BULLYING AND ASSUMPTION AGAINST GOOD FAITH. I'M CORRECTING AND MADE SOME OF THE CHANGES, and then suddenly, YOU KEPT ON REVERTING WITHOUT CAREFULLY LOOKING AT OTHER UPDATES. Lightweight double sculls doesn't indeed have a QUARTERFINAL PHASE for both men and women, only single sculls do. But looking at the men's lightweight double sculls that you reverted, it contains a quarterfinal phase, while the women doesn't. WHAT SEEMS TO BE YOUR PROBLEM? Stop telling me that it's against MOS (blah blah) as your main reason. It's irritating and stressful to hear that. I don't even understand why do you have to file a complaint against me on edit warring. This is for the nth time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The more I look at this I see WP:BOOMERANG issues here. Both editors should discuss. Qed237 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Basement12, another issue on me about my edit for Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics. He thinks that I don't speak English and have ownership issues. Also, he will keep on giving me the same reason about this. It makes me irritating and stressful. I don't even know how many NOC pages did he target on his watch list. First, he started the edit war with me on Canada, San Marino, Chile, and now Spain. I have too many concerns already about the styling. And the width of tables for events. They're even longer than the name of athletes and the results which will be posted during the Games. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
User:Qblue53 reported by User:Banedon (Result: )
Page: Cougar (slang) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qblue53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
See also the edit history of the article. 75.138.187.114 also performed the same revert multiple times. I'm inclined to invoke WP:DUCK, but I'll leave that to a neutral editor. We didn't try to resolve this on the talk page, but it is five different editors reverting two (or possibly one, if the IP is the same as Qblue53) editor, whose edit summaries do not exactly indicate that a constructive talk page discussion is possible ... Banedon (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
multiple people use this ip address I read the person who used this ip to edit post and I backed him/her up this is not edit warring I changed twice once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719523463&oldid=719521861 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719524191&oldid=719523478 and is false accusing this of duck because I agree with them really this is public ip and where I am online lots of people are up using computer online with this ip this is not duck I agreed with the person who used the ip to edit and that is it what so if multiple people use the same ip which most do and agree then that is reason for report what else was I supposed to put for reason for change if I agreed the other person I dream of horses said in my talk page before I deleted it that I have to put a good reason or something and saying that misrepresent what is written in article was not considered good reason https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719524240&oldid=719523481 so I typed what I agreed with specifically
Diffs of the reverts as by 75.138.187.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719513007&oldid=719512858]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719515452&oldid=719513035]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719517378&oldid=719516685]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719520805&oldid=719520484]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719521861&oldid=719521016]
Diffs of the user's reverts as Qblue53:
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719524191&oldid=719523478]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719526592&oldid=719525743]
Also Qblue53 has been edit warring on MILF (slang) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I have requested BRD which has been ignored. Previous version reverted to: MILF (slang) Diffs of the user's reverts as Qblue53:
Evidence for WP:DUCK: Both the IP and Qblue do not sign their talk, do not punctuate their talk, are abrasive, spelling errors, and quickly erase their talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
lots of people do not sign in to talk and delete there talk pages or do not have anything in user page you do not Branedon(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Banedon&action=edit&redlink=1) and as being abrasive have you been on the internet you are grasping at straws and I was not against going on talk pages I did not see a discussing about it going on there(my talk pages https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719529610&oldid=719528762) no discussing was going on I am not against going to talk pages lots of people do not punctuate or use good grammar online when on forums etc. which they do because they are either 1 there grammer sucks or 2 they do not feel the need to I keep my grammer good where it counts in wiki the articles and I assume whoever using the ip to edit depending on the person who dose use ip and not account dose the same thing Also (Qblue53 has been edit warring on MILF (slang) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I have requested BRD which has been ignored). that is a lie first I requested the brd https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&action=history I put (cur | prev) 07:11, 10 May 2016 Qblue53 (talk | contribs) . . (6,325 bytes) (-1,427) . . (Undid revision 719525550 by Jim1138 (talk) I explained this before if want otherwise discuss in talk per wp:brd)) (undo) I typed in wr:brb and he (cur | prev) 07:12, 10 May 2016 Jim1138 (talk | contribs) . . (7,752 bytes) (+1,427) . . (Undid revision 719530604 by Qblue53 (talk) rv no. see BRD) (undo | thank I put in wr:brb first and reverted to mine then he did and reverted to his these two just have something against me also what about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim1138 on his page it says vandalism 4.3CVS / 4.6RPM according to DefconBot I also did not find out about brd until I read this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719525188&oldid=719524240 I am still kinda new I read what brd was then on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719526149&oldid=719525743 asked bout where was the talk on the talk page it was not there no one was talking about it also apparently on ip talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3A75.138.187.114&diff=719517120 jim1138 deleted a comment he/she posted I thought you were not supposed to do that after I was warned once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719525188&oldid=719524240 I did not revert again and on milf page he reverted a change I made on month ago with out a good reason his https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&diff=719525550&oldid=717187350 mine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&diff=715212782&oldid=712127438 I am repeating myself but I did not do anything wrong i am being falsely accused i never had any problems before today
- I fully protected the article; looks like a content dispute to me, and in any case we do not need walls of text here. But obviously if sock suspicions get confirmed, the protection should be lifted, and socks blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
sorry about walls of text i am just trying to defend myself sir i am not a sock and did not like being accused of one
User:2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE reported by User:SimonP (Result: Semi)
Page: Epiousios ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2602:306:BC24:8C00:642F:5DDE:8924:4720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2602:306:BC24:8C00:F9A8:400F:DBE2:DB13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2602:306:BC24:8C00:253D:A4D2:9BBC:F3D3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [72]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719470693&oldid=719432110
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719505073&oldid=719494610
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719547418&oldid=719508159
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719566202&oldid=719566086
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Epiousios#Reworking_this_article, see also Talk:Lord's_Prayer#Removed_info for the same issue on a different article.
Comments:
- Result: Semiprotected one month due to an IP-hopping revert war. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:XavierGreen reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )
Page: Donetsk People's Republic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [73]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Fifth revert, a bit outside of 24 hrs
5. [78]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]. Previous warnings: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]
Comments:
Discussion on talk page [86] and notifications on user's talk page [87] results in just endless "I'm right! I'm right!" WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and wikilawyering.
The user has been on Wikipedia some time, they know very well that they shouldn't edit war, they're quite aware of the bright line 3RR rule, they've been blocked for this kind of behavior before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- User Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted valid tags I added to the page regarding the quality and relevance of sources added on the article which are the subject of an ongoing discussion. I added the tags to help facilitate the discussion. In good faith, I have asked VolunteerMarek to partake in the discussion on the talk page. But instead, he has engaged in an edit war and has seemingly refused to state in the talk page why the tag I added should not be there. VolunteerMarek several other editors with seemingly pro-Ukrainian viewpoints have attempted to bully me in the past by putting edit war notices on my page whenever I make an edit to a Ukrainian conflict related page. I at every point have attempted to act in good faith and use the dispute resolution process, Talk Page RFC's ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- ... and also edit warred a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Could we also add WP:BLUDGEON to the edit warring bit... Incessant, disruptive CRUSH tactics are deployed by the editor because, in their WP:BATTLEGROUND mind there can be no right content other than the content they want. I'm not going to point out diffs simply because one only needs to read through the RfC, the current 'discussion', and look at the history of the article to see that the editor doesn't understand what WP:DEADHORSE means, nor that multiple other editors are not obliged to prove something not relevant to the argument just because s/he has posed a nonsensical question and has invoked a policy or guideline equally irrelevant to the discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether or not the sources listed are relevant to what they are being used to support is not a nonsensical question. User:VolunteerMarek in his edit summaries himself said that two of the sources only implied such a statement. Such sources are irrelevant to proving the matter asserted. The third source in question is from February of 2015, and as such does not reflect the current situation on the ground and also is therefore irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the Minsk II protocols/agreement? I have already asked you to bring any references backing up the fact that there has been a change of international attitude to the table, or that Minsk II has been usurped by some other agreement. Where are your RS? It's still in place (per this article and umpteen dozen others. What that means is that the status of the DPR and LPR have not changed and that the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it has changed. It's irrelevant when an international agreement was put in place (last week or 30 years ago): if it still stands, it still stands... End of story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether or not the sources listed are relevant to what they are being used to support is not a nonsensical question. User:VolunteerMarek in his edit summaries himself said that two of the sources only implied such a statement. Such sources are irrelevant to proving the matter asserted. The third source in question is from February of 2015, and as such does not reflect the current situation on the ground and also is therefore irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Could we also add WP:BLUDGEON to the edit warring bit... Incessant, disruptive CRUSH tactics are deployed by the editor because, in their WP:BATTLEGROUND mind there can be no right content other than the content they want. I'm not going to point out diffs simply because one only needs to read through the RfC, the current 'discussion', and look at the history of the article to see that the editor doesn't understand what WP:DEADHORSE means, nor that multiple other editors are not obliged to prove something not relevant to the argument just because s/he has posed a nonsensical question and has invoked a policy or guideline equally irrelevant to the discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- ... and also edit warred a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- User Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted valid tags I added to the page regarding the quality and relevance of sources added on the article which are the subject of an ongoing discussion. I added the tags to help facilitate the discussion. In good faith, I have asked VolunteerMarek to partake in the discussion on the talk page. But instead, he has engaged in an edit war and has seemingly refused to state in the talk page why the tag I added should not be there. VolunteerMarek several other editors with seemingly pro-Ukrainian viewpoints have attempted to bully me in the past by putting edit war notices on my page whenever I make an edit to a Ukrainian conflict related page. I at every point have attempted to act in good faith and use the dispute resolution process, Talk Page RFC's ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Shishirkc reported by User:Sitush (Result:Indeffed)
- Page
- Pasi (caste) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Shishirkc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719599280 by Sitush (talk) Re-iterating. Calling a community of people untouchable is a criminal offence. Stop or else legal actions will be taken."
- 17:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719598717 by Sitush (talk) Calling a community of people untouchable is a criminal offence in India and is considered casteism. Kindly refrain from using the term. I belong to this caste"
- 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719596232 by Primefac (talk)"
- 17:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 17:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) to 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "wel and warn"
- 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pasi (caste). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Once more unto the breach */ cmt"
- Comments:
- And now a legal threat. This is an old dispute being revived by a member of the caste. Wikipedia is not governed by the laws of India. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Added the latest revert (with an ec here apparently). Primefac (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- * Blocked indefinitely for legal threats.Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:AldezD (Result: )
Page: Plymouth Church (Brooklyn) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:40, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719608517 by Kateypup (talk) no, this does not work)
- 14:45, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719609098 by Kateypup (talk) Do not revert my edits without giving a reason., Your layout was bad, period)
- 14:51, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719610190 by Kateypup (talk) Your layout fucks up the article. It looks bad. The image does not fit there. STOP)
- 14:55, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719610810 by Kateypup (talk) Please see WP:BRD If you want to "collaborate" follow what it says, do not revert again)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- [89]—User:Kateypup reached out to User:Beyond My Ken on his talk page at 14:48, in between User:Beyond My Ken's second and third reversion to Plymouth Church (Brooklyn). User:Beyond My Ken then reverted the edit a fourth time at 14:55.
Comments:
User has a long-term pattern of 3RR behavior as explained by the lengthy block log for this user. Revision as of 14:51, 10 May 2016 by the user includes profanity in the edit summary. AldezD (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- AldezD, who is in an unrelated dispute with me at Talk:All About Eve, filed this report almost immediately after templating myself and User:Kateypup for edit warring, when no additional edits had been made by either of us after the warning. The purpose of the warning is to stop the edit warring, it is not simply an item necessary to file a report. Further, the fact that AldezD and are are co-disputants on another issue casts this report in a very bad light.
I am, at this moment, if I wasn't distracted by stuff like this, trying to show the other editor in the current case why her edit is damaging the article. There are discussions ongoing on her and my talk pages, and this should be taken into account, as well as AldezD's potential bias in making this report. BMK (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just to note that whereas BMK technically overstepped 3RR making four reverts, and you stopped at three reverts, this were you who introduced the edit first. Per WP:BRD, it was your responsibility to go to the talk page and start a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, AldezD is not the other party in this report, the other party is User:Kateypup, but, yes, I agree that it was her responsibility to take it to the talk page. She is, however, a fairly new editor who has concentrated almost entirely on this article, and she;s still learning the ways of the place, so I don't think that should beheld against her. BMK (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just to note that whereas BMK technically overstepped 3RR making four reverts, and you stopped at three reverts, this were you who introduced the edit first. Per WP:BRD, it was your responsibility to go to the talk page and start a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken knows far and above what is appropriate behavior. He has been blocked seven times for edit warring. He continues to revert edits in a disruptive manner without first engaging in discussion, requiring the other party to take the first step in mediation (see talk page for BMK linked above as well as Talk:All About Eve#In popular culture section). In a reply above, BMK recognizes that the other party is "a fairly new editor". But instead of reaching out to the editor, BMK returns to the pattern of 3RR and WP:BATTLE edits, not engaging the other party until required to do so by responding to User:Kateypup's edit to his talk page. Whether or not I am the other party in the edit war at Plymouth Church (Brooklyn) has no bearing on this user's long-term pattern of disruptive 3RR and WP:BATTLE behavior. After seven blocks over the course of several years, at what point is this clearly patterned behavior stopped? AldezD (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- To provide the context, one of the seven blocks was mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- My history is not relevant to this report, it would be relevant if an admin decided to block me, to determine the length of the block.
Now, I need an opinion please: the dispute is about the layout of the article. I believe that by creating a gallery of images, I can settle the dispute, and have proposed so to Kateypup on her talk page. I am hesitant to do so without some sort of OK, because, teclnically, it would be another revert, albeit one the intent of which is to find a compromise. Can I go ahead and do this, or must I wait until this report is closed? BMK (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your history is 100% relevant to this report. You have a long-term pattern of 3RR as evidenced by your seven blocks for it, and this is yet another example that you will likely continue this pattern of disruptive behavior when you do not agree with another user's edits unless it is stopped here.
- BMK is only now reaching out for WP:3 on Plymouth Church (Brooklyn) within this report after having being reported yet again for edit warring rather than taking the initiative as a seasoned editor and contacting someone about the dispute (in this case, either User:Kateypup or even at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements). AldezD (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, AldezD's timeline is incorrect, and his facts are wrong: I posted on Kateypup's talk page asking her to stop, before she posted on mine, and I have not, in fact, requested WP:3O.
Oh, just a note about my block log: please note that while AldezD is pleased to repeat that I have seven blocks, a closer look would show
- The latest of those blocks was undone almost immediately by the blocking adminas "too hasty"
- A 24-hour block actually lasted 4+ hours after discussion with the blocking admin
- Another 72-hour block (Ymblanter's in fact) lasted about an hour after discussion between myself, Ymblanter and Drmies.
- So things are not nearly as straight-forward as AldezD -- who appears to be acting as the prosecutor for this case, most probably because of the disagreement on Talk:All About Eve I mentioned above -- would like them to appear. BMK (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The time frame in which blocks have been released has no bearing on your evidenced pattern of 3RR and WP:BATTLE behavior. A 24-hour block being released after just four hours following your outreach to an admin still does not negate the fact that you were blocked for edit warring. You have an evidenced long-term pattern of this behavior. Without admin intervention, this pattern of behavior will clearly continue indefinitely. AldezD (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, AldezD's timeline is incorrect, and his facts are wrong: I posted on Kateypup's talk page asking her to stop, before she posted on mine, and I have not, in fact, requested WP:3O.
Oh, just a note about my block log: please note that while AldezD is pleased to repeat that I have seven blocks, a closer look would show
- My history is not relevant to this report, it would be relevant if an admin decided to block me, to determine the length of the block.
Now, I need an opinion please: the dispute is about the layout of the article. I believe that by creating a gallery of images, I can settle the dispute, and have proposed so to Kateypup on her talk page. I am hesitant to do so without some sort of OK, because, teclnically, it would be another revert, albeit one the intent of which is to find a compromise. Can I go ahead and do this, or must I wait until this report is closed? BMK (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please also see Recent ANI, from 27 to 29 February 2016. There have been prior ANIs (as evidenced from ANI logs) initiated based on accusations of hounding, abusive comments within edit summaries, edit warring, etc. The user is likely to continue ignoring WP:AGF and will continue engaging in edit warring unless this behavior is stopped. AldezD (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you see any blocks for hounding, harrassment, abusive comments etc? No, you don't. Please confine yourself to information pertinent to this report, and stop acting as my self-appointed prosecutor. Absent something substantive, I will not be responding to your posts here, so you have the freedom now to slag me off without contradiction, if you are a person so inclined to do that. Meanwhile, I continue to try to work the problem out with Kateypup, which I thought was the point of the edit-warring notice, not an excuse for punishment for my supposed bad character. BMK (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note from uninvolved party looking in: previous blocks have no bearing whatsoever on current reports. You cannot be punished for the same "crime" twice in the outside world; Wikipedia is no different and is somewhat inferior to the former. I'm not qualified to comment on the dispute itself as I've not been following it, but to reference somebody's block log at any dispute is in bad taste and reeks of desperation on the filing editor's part. CassiantoTalk 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment—Being tried twice for the same "crime", as you put it, is entirely different than engaging in a long-term evidenced pattern of disruptive behavior for years, repeatedly edit warring and being blocked for it. This report is yet another example that the user's pattern of behavior will likely continue barring any intervention. AldezD (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that this has less to do with the BMK's block log and more to with the fact that you don't like it when your edits are contested. CassiantoTalk 21:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- That does not negate the patterned disruptive behavior of the other user and 3RR actions today. AldezD (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've just looked at the article and I don't see any discussion per WP:BRD. Kateypup Was Bold, BMK Reverted, and Kateypup failed to Discuss. Maybe if either Kateypup, or you, come to that, had've adhered to this policy, this whole pantomime wouldn't have started. CassiantoTalk 21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cassianato: There is discussion on both my and Kateypup's talk page, here and here. Not ideal, of course, the article talk page would be better, but discussion in the wrong place is better than no discussion at all. For the record, I believe I posted to her talk page before she posted to mine, so I did begin the BRD Discussion. I've now posted on her page visual evidence of why I found her layout problematic, and my suggestion for a solution (a gallery),
but I have yet to hear back from her. BMK (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)- I take that last part back, she did respond and we're trying to work things out. BMK (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, BMK, I did pre-warn that I had come in to this quickly as an uninvolved party and not in full view of the facts etc... . It does appear to me then that this is almost certainly Kateypup's doing and that it is she/he at fault here as they have persistently warred without discussion on their part. Like a pointed out earlier, I'm not qualified to munch over the dispute itself, but suffice to say the mentioning of your block log is both irrelevant and uncalled for. I want to reiterate that I'm only concerned with the formation of this report and the references made to your block log, which is unfair. To me, mentioning your block log smacks of desperate puffery in order to get the maximum action out of this situation, something which, I envisage, will end badly for Kateypup. CassiantoTalk 22:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)inb templ
- I think in your last sentence you meant to say AldezD, who filed this report and is the one harping on my block log and generally bad character, not Kateypup, who was the other party to the edit warring. Although I agree that she should have started the discussion, I don't advocate that anything should happen to her, as she's only been here since April. She is sometimes prickly (as am I) and somewhat more sure of herself than is supported by her minimal experience here, but she has done prodigious work researching and expanding the article above. Further, since we now seem to be in reach of a consensus between us as to how to handle the images in the article (the locus of the dispute), anything done to her now would be punitive -- and I believe that goes for myself as well. AldezD was not wrong, per se, in templating both of us for edit warring -- although his lack of judgment in doing so while he and I were in the middle of another dispute is considerable -- but filing a report immediately afterwards, when neither party continued to edit war shows perhaps more of an interest in punishment and getting a tactical advantage in the other dispute then it does the true Wikipedia spirit. Had Kateypup or I continued to edit war after the warning -- which we did not -- an editor would have been justified in filing a report, but for an "involved" editor such as AldezD to do so just isn't good judgment, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, BMK, I did pre-warn that I had come in to this quickly as an uninvolved party and not in full view of the facts etc... . It does appear to me then that this is almost certainly Kateypup's doing and that it is she/he at fault here as they have persistently warred without discussion on their part. Like a pointed out earlier, I'm not qualified to munch over the dispute itself, but suffice to say the mentioning of your block log is both irrelevant and uncalled for. I want to reiterate that I'm only concerned with the formation of this report and the references made to your block log, which is unfair. To me, mentioning your block log smacks of desperate puffery in order to get the maximum action out of this situation, something which, I envisage, will end badly for Kateypup. CassiantoTalk 22:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)inb templ
- I take that last part back, she did respond and we're trying to work things out. BMK (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cassianato: There is discussion on both my and Kateypup's talk page, here and here. Not ideal, of course, the article talk page would be better, but discussion in the wrong place is better than no discussion at all. For the record, I believe I posted to her talk page before she posted to mine, so I did begin the BRD Discussion. I've now posted on her page visual evidence of why I found her layout problematic, and my suggestion for a solution (a gallery),
- I've just looked at the article and I don't see any discussion per WP:BRD. Kateypup Was Bold, BMK Reverted, and Kateypup failed to Discuss. Maybe if either Kateypup, or you, come to that, had've adhered to this policy, this whole pantomime wouldn't have started. CassiantoTalk 21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- That does not negate the patterned disruptive behavior of the other user and 3RR actions today. AldezD (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that this has less to do with the BMK's block log and more to with the fact that you don't like it when your edits are contested. CassiantoTalk 21:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment—Being tried twice for the same "crime", as you put it, is entirely different than engaging in a long-term evidenced pattern of disruptive behavior for years, repeatedly edit warring and being blocked for it. This report is yet another example that the user's pattern of behavior will likely continue barring any intervention. AldezD (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
BMK seems to fail to understand that WP:BRD is an essay and that WP:3RR is a policy which states "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." His insisting that other people must respect his demands and edit summaries like "Your layout fucks up the article. It looks bad. The image does not fit there. STOP" are a big part of the problem. Starting a discussion only after violating 3RR, from an editor who's been blocked four separate times in the past 15 months for edit warring, is a sign of a problem that needs to be addressed by an admin. Alansohn (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, it is an essay, but essays are there to guide people into sticking within the boundaries of policies. As BMK points out above, he started the D part of the essay; something which Kateypup was required (and failed) to do. At no point has BMK said contrary to that, so your point is moot. CassiantoTalk 22:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Essays are just that, essays; You can't violate an essay. No one can said to have been "required (and failed) to" have failed to abide by an essay. By contrast, BMK has violated a bright line, one for which he has been blocked on seven occasions. Well past time for warnings. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I speaking double fucking Dutch or something? BMK's block log is irrelevant to this report, so why do you people keep bringing it up? Concentrate on why we are here now and the causes of it (not a result of BMK, but the person who failed his part of the deal to discuss), not what's gone on in the past. CassiantoTalk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't worry about Alansohn, he pops up whenever my name comes up in any negative context. I suppose I should have returned the favor in the recent noticeboard threads about him, but that's not the way I go. Anyway, Alansohn will do his best to convince all and sundry about what a really bad dude I am, the worst internal enemy of Wikipedia. The last time he did it, Floquenbeam had this to say: "there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their 'enemies' having with other people..." Regrettably, this appears not to have discouraged him from continuing the practice, as evidenced here. That's too bad, since he's in most other respects a good editor, and some of our interests overlap. BMK (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- .I have some of those too, unfortunately. CassiantoTalk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, no one has said it yet, but "There's a special place in hell reserved for people who can't learn how to edit without edit warring." You too are capable of decent editing at times, but you fall into edit wars without provocation, counting on being able to bullshit your way out of problems time after time. WP:3RR says pretty clearly that "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block."' As a seven-time loser, number eight is inevitable and you seem to be rather belligerently tempting the fates. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- "No one has said it yet..." Au contraire, you have said it, in one way or another, over and over again, as if edit warring was the Wikipedia equivalent of murder, or terrorism, or kidnapping, or robbing a bank. Needless to say, it's not. It's certainly a bad habit, but your reaction to it is so out of proportion to its actual seriousness that it's really rather frightening. That you've appointed yourself my personal persecutor raises serious questions about why you would over-react in that way, especially since your animus derives from my taking an opposite position from you on the ANI threads which resulted in your IBan with Magnolia. You clearly have some difficulty in getting past that, but I will remind you that that IBan was not imposed by me, it was imposed by the Wikipedia community, so your palpable dislike for me is out of place, and certainly more detrimental to Wiki-harmony that my occasional failure to control myself and fall into edit warring. I would ask you to take a good hard look at your behavior, and cease your denigration and villification of me, which is not helpful to anyone, and certainly, as pointed out above about AldezD's similar behavior, not relevant to this report. In short, cut it out, please. BMK (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: While sticking the knife in an opponent may be fun, please bear in mind that onlookers find the spectacle odious and eventually the habit will result in your fall because it is most unhelpful for the community. Admins here do not need your assistance working out what the related policies say. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, no one has said it yet, but "There's a special place in hell reserved for people who can't learn how to edit without edit warring." You too are capable of decent editing at times, but you fall into edit wars without provocation, counting on being able to bullshit your way out of problems time after time. WP:3RR says pretty clearly that "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block."' As a seven-time loser, number eight is inevitable and you seem to be rather belligerently tempting the fates. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- .I have some of those too, unfortunately. CassiantoTalk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't worry about Alansohn, he pops up whenever my name comes up in any negative context. I suppose I should have returned the favor in the recent noticeboard threads about him, but that's not the way I go. Anyway, Alansohn will do his best to convince all and sundry about what a really bad dude I am, the worst internal enemy of Wikipedia. The last time he did it, Floquenbeam had this to say: "there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their 'enemies' having with other people..." Regrettably, this appears not to have discouraged him from continuing the practice, as evidenced here. That's too bad, since he's in most other respects a good editor, and some of our interests overlap. BMK (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I speaking double fucking Dutch or something? BMK's block log is irrelevant to this report, so why do you people keep bringing it up? Concentrate on why we are here now and the causes of it (not a result of BMK, but the person who failed his part of the deal to discuss), not what's gone on in the past. CassiantoTalk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Essays are just that, essays; You can't violate an essay. No one can said to have been "required (and failed) to" have failed to abide by an essay. By contrast, BMK has violated a bright line, one for which he has been blocked on seven occasions. Well past time for warnings. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)