Terrorist96 (talk | contribs) |
→User:Dan the Plumber reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: ): Warned user(s) (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 413: | Line 413: | ||
*{{AN3|w}} {{u|Pragdon}} has never posted on any talk page. They are '''warned''' that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. {{u|Ruhubelent}}, in the future please use [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Editintro this link] to create a properly formatted edit warring report. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|w}} {{u|Pragdon}} has never posted on any talk page. They are '''warned''' that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. {{u|Ruhubelent}}, in the future please use [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Editintro this link] to create a properly formatted edit warring report. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Dan the Plumber]] reported by [[User:Terrorist96]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Dan the Plumber]] reported by [[User:Terrorist96]] (Result: Dan the Plumber warned) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ghouta chemical attack}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ghouta chemical attack}} <br /> |
||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
||
*{{AN3|w}} {{u|Dan the Plumber}} was not previously properly notified of discretionary sanctions which is a requirement prior to levying sanctions. I've now notified them and logged the notification ({{u|Terrorist96}}, you could have done this as well) so any more reverts will likely result in a block or topic ban. Also, the article is not under a consensus-required restriction. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:17, 3 July 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
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:Mztourist reported by User:124.85.14.35 (Result: OP and 125.192.86.52 blocked, article semi-protected)
Page: Thuy Bo massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts in which the editor gives an arbitrary reason for having removed a contribution.
Reverts in which the editor makes, broad, bold changes without justifying all of the edits and removals fully. Including continual changes to "reported" and "purported", despite having been changed repeatedly.
Misc, but fails consensus on issues regarding the usage of reported vs. purported, often in the past
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
- Note: Using IP 125.192.86.52
Comments:
User has consistently given poor reasons for reverting my edits, the latest string were based on strange justification around dates. Previous edits the user has made substantive ninja-edits that went unjustified, and broad changes from the previous "consensus" version. Failed to justify these changes adequately, and only seems to have made comments about the article being poorly written, pov and so-on, despite this article being featured on the front page. 124.85.14.35 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- User IP 124.85.14.35 has appeared from nowhere today and started making changes to this page, I believe that my edit summaries as shown in diffs 54-6 above adequately explain the issues I have identified with 124.85.14.35's edits. In relation to the edits by IP 125.192.86.52 (who also appeared today and came straight to this article and so I assume is related and indeed 124.85.14.35 seems to admit the same above), again I believe that my edit summaries as shown in diffs 57-9 adequately explain the issues and in addition I have explained my changes and concerns with this page in detail on the Talk Page, whereas IP 125.192.86.52 merely made a few cursory comments on the Talk Page regarding my supposed bias and continued edit warring, for which I warned him/her here: [12]. The fact that this (or any other) article was featured doesn't mean that it is somehow untouchable as the IP would like. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- You justified this removal on the grounds that you believed the dates are wrong, but there is no justification you gave that these are different events that are discussed. Both ARE referring to the same subject that this article relates to, and your removal was on very shaky grounds. This isn't the worse of it, you justified a prior removal here [13] for a poor reason, and did two reverts of a ninja edit here [14] and here [15] in which you removed the section "at close range", despite the source material specifically discussing this. Your mass-edit was poorly explained given you made far more substantive changes than justified, in which changes you made were not from consensus on the issue or from standard expectation of the template for reporting massacres/mass-murders. There was previous consensus on image usage which you seem to have flaunted and far more substantive removal of sourced content based on your personal assessment of what should be regarded as relevant or not. Noticed no other users were making the same removals that you did? What's more, these are the exact changes that you have made several days ago which were previously reverted I've noticed, but which you've undid here[16] and [17] here in which you failed to justify broad substantive changes for every single edit you have made. Given that you initially opened with negative opinions on the article, and repeatedly discussed the merits of academic texts of the work it seems you are already editing with a significant bias against the article and source material within the article.124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Amazing how you have supposedly only been active on WP for 1 day and found the Edit Warring board... I made my changes originally a few days ago and they were reverted, I followed WP:BRD and discussed them to apparent exhaustion here: Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Poorly written, biased and lacks WP:RS with IP 173.64.109.152 (who I assume is also you) and explained them in detail here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Recent edits on 28 June and then waited until today to make any further edits, as there were no comments I duly made my edits. I explained here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Deleting Images and use of words why the image was deleted. Meanwhile you have never followed WP:BRD, edit-warred always claiming that you are right and then accuse me of breaching consensus. A number of other Users have editted this page, but none of them reverted my recent edits or commented on the Talk Page other than you IPs. Mztourist (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- 173.x is definitely not me. Given that I travel around for work-related reasons and don't always connect from a single node, and the fact that I have a dynamic IP address this is unavoidable. I don't really see how this adds to the discussion on the fact that you are engaging in edit warring. You are the sole contributor aside from my edits today, I don't really see why you would believe others agree with your edit. You explaining your own opinion on the matter doesn't justify all the drastic edits you made, and the fact that nobody seems to have agreed with your changes doesn't mean you have the right of consensus on this issue. 126.151.34.213(talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Amazing how you have supposedly only been active on WP for 1 day and found the Edit Warring board... I made my changes originally a few days ago and they were reverted, I followed WP:BRD and discussed them to apparent exhaustion here: Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Poorly written, biased and lacks WP:RS with IP 173.64.109.152 (who I assume is also you) and explained them in detail here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Recent edits on 28 June and then waited until today to make any further edits, as there were no comments I duly made my edits. I explained here Talk:Thuy Bo massacre#Deleting Images and use of words why the image was deleted. Meanwhile you have never followed WP:BRD, edit-warred always claiming that you are right and then accuse me of breaching consensus. A number of other Users have editted this page, but none of them reverted my recent edits or commented on the Talk Page other than you IPs. Mztourist (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- You justified this removal on the grounds that you believed the dates are wrong, but there is no justification you gave that these are different events that are discussed. Both ARE referring to the same subject that this article relates to, and your removal was on very shaky grounds. This isn't the worse of it, you justified a prior removal here [13] for a poor reason, and did two reverts of a ninja edit here [14] and here [15] in which you removed the section "at close range", despite the source material specifically discussing this. Your mass-edit was poorly explained given you made far more substantive changes than justified, in which changes you made were not from consensus on the issue or from standard expectation of the template for reporting massacres/mass-murders. There was previous consensus on image usage which you seem to have flaunted and far more substantive removal of sourced content based on your personal assessment of what should be regarded as relevant or not. Noticed no other users were making the same removals that you did? What's more, these are the exact changes that you have made several days ago which were previously reverted I've noticed, but which you've undid here[16] and [17] here in which you failed to justify broad substantive changes for every single edit you have made. Given that you initially opened with negative opinions on the article, and repeatedly discussed the merits of academic texts of the work it seems you are already editing with a significant bias against the article and source material within the article.124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: User in question has proceeded with a noticeboard discussion on reliability of the source, after depreciating and making drastic edits. [18] Its quite clear the user is already operating with a significant bias on this matter, and seems to be moving towards having this event be regarded as a hoax or fabrication and so-on. 124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am perfectly entitled to raise this issue at WP:RSN and, as can be seen there, there are a variety of different views as to the reliability of the interviews and how they can be used.Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- OP blocked. Given that User:124.85.14.35 and User:125.192.86.52 are patently the same user (both appeared today to target this article, both using the same Japanese IP, similar edit summaries) that means they have made at least six reverts between them , and so I have blocked them both. If another admin wants to sanction Mztourist for revert warring against the two socks I would not object, but I am not going to do it myself at this point. Since that user is using shifting IPs, I am also going to semi-protect the article. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay I apologize, I don't have an account but edit during down-time whenever. 126.151.34.213 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Efiluk reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Efiluk warned)
- Page
- International recognition of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Efiluk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- 19:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- 16:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) to 11:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- 11:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Withdrawn recognition */"
- 11:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- 11:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- 11:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Member states of the United Nations */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- [19]
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Has been warned and still keeps reverting on a delicate article. The situation on the recognition from Liberia and Guinea has been explained on the talk page by several editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned Efiluk warned they may be blocked and/or topic banned if they do not get consensus for their edits. NeilN talk to me 16:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
User:14.139.69.5 reported by User:Dhtwiki (Result: Block, Semi)
- Page
- University of Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 14.139.69.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Considerable edit warring since end of May, over protester who committed suicide and whose death doesn't reflect well on school. Similar, but slighter, warring in spring-summer of 2016-17 as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours, page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:425mike reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 425mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Comments:
DS Alert: [42] --00:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 23:20, 23:25, 23:42, 00:00. Warned prior. Kuru (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
...and he immediately started socking, thus converting 24 hours to an indef for him and his sockpuppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Adoniosis reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Battle of Vrbanja Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adoniosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [43]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]
Comments:
This "new" user deleted an edit-warring warning from their talk page.[51] then immediately claimed anti-Serb bias when reverted by DuncanHill.[52] They have been warned yet again by Jim1138,[53] for edit-warring on a different article; Jim was probably not aware that I had already warned them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- You failed to mention your own edit war, your biased wording and POV in mentioned article, and the fact that we were suggested to settle our dispute on talk page when you rushed to lock and protect the article from editing. Adoniosis (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense. I asked for protection to ensure you used the talk page to discuss the issue and use dispute resolution as needed. You ignored that advice and edit-warred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. Your unconstructive and non-neutral edits and your lack of will to cooperate is the reason for this dispute. Adoniosis (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Adoniosis is warring on Operation Corridor 92, after this report was filed reverted again on that article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. Your unconstructive and non-neutral edits and your lack of will to cooperate is the reason for this dispute. Adoniosis (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense. I asked for protection to ensure you used the talk page to discuss the issue and use dispute resolution as needed. You ignored that advice and edit-warred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Mazesbacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just turned up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Will monitor. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Oogaboo1234 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)
- Page
- European Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Oogaboo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Hogesa */"
- Consecutive edits made from 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Norwegian Defence League */"
- 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Scottish Defence League */"
- 09:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Dutch Defence League */"
- 09:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Norwegian Defence League */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
- 09:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on European Defence League. (TW)"
- 10:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"
- 10:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated acts to remove or blank sections of this page. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely by RickinBaltimore NeilN talk to me 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:YSSYguy reported by User:Deryck Chan (Result: )
Page:
- List of Singapore Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- List of Cathay Pacific destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YSSYguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- List of Singapore Airlines destinations:
- List of Cathay Pacific destinations:
- List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
YSSYguy went around standardizing airline destination lists between April and May. Since then, he has been displaying heavy WP:OWN behaviour on those list articles. One point of particular concern was his adamant insistence that Hong Kong must be listed under China.
An IP user in the dispute opened an RfC on Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations. YSSYguy has not participated since 23 May but continued to revert any edit that he disagreed with, without providing any edit summary. He hasn't reverted in a few weeks but restarted doing so yesterday. YSSYguy has resorted to incivil language in his edit summary and has refused to compromise despite multiple editors telling him it is inappropriate to lump Hong Kong under China in aviation lists [87][88][89].
Edit warring / 3RR templates have not been used because the pace of edit warring was slow and no single user is close to violating 3RR.
Comments:
- I have inspected his edits, I think there exists a broader problem of these list : I check jurisdiction but others may not do so. I hate doing these things and these really isn't a small thing for Hong Kong citizens.--1233Talk 12:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: He is continuing his effort to force his will through a consensus at the related RfC which the majority did not support Hong Kong being listed as a Chinese destination.--1233Talk 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello User:1233. The RfC at this link does not have any statement at the top about what question it is discussing. If you think editors have reached a consensus, can you say what it is? EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, the question is about whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as a separate country from China or not. Most of them would not list Hong Kong as a PRC Airline Destination.--1233Talk 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @EdJohnston: The RfC's question is "how should the 'country' column in aviation destination lists treat Hong Kong and Macau". I think the rough consensus is "not under China" and opinions are split about the "think outside the box" solution of renaming the column "Country / Territory"; however both 1233 and I have expressed an opinion in the debate the discussion hasn't been closed yet, so I would leave it to you to gauge the consensus. In the meantime, YSSYguy has continued to change the "country" field of "Hong Kong" to "China" in other lists,[90] even going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before.[91]. Deryck C. 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello User:1233. The RfC at this link does not have any statement at the top about what question it is discussing. If you think editors have reached a consensus, can you say what it is? EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- If User:YSSYguy doesn't continue to revert it is likely this complaint will be closed with a warning, not to revert again about 'country' on those three articles. One problem is that the complaint is not super-clear. (The edits listed above are not all about this issue). Also, in some cases people are putting the country field as blank next to Hong Kong, which seems peculiar. Even if we delegate this whole question to the editors working in WT:AIRPORT, they should be able to state clearly what they want the rule to be. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: He is continuing his effort to force his will through a consensus at the related RfC which the majority did not support Hong Kong being listed as a Chinese destination.--1233Talk 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:85.12.78.251 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
- Page
- Data type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 85.12.78.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'cyka blyat idi na hui'"
- 13:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'wankerssss'"
- 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'wankers'"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Data type. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated 3RR. The IP user made destructive edits. Must be stopped. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks @Web SourceContent: You'll get a faster response if you report vandals at WP:AIV. NeilN talk to me 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
User:2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- Page
- World oil market chronology from 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
- 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
- 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Reported vandalism by this user. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Jauerback NeilN talk to me 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Alian786 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)
- Page
- Adam Saleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Alian786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Blocked indefinitely by Amorymeltzer NeilN talk to me 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
User: 2A02:C7D:8080:AB00:252F:F166:50DC:DB9D reported by User:Marashdeh (Result: page semi-protected for one week)
Page: Electrical capacitance volume tomography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7D:8080:AB00:252F:F166:50DC:DB9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.164.255.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.133.215.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.130.33.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [92]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
An anonymous user continues to adjust one line at the top of the Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography page which deals with the original developers of ECVT. There are many references on the page which indicate Warsito, Marashdeh, and Fan as the original developers of ECVT. The anonymous user adjusts the text to state that it is researchers from the UK and Poland who developed ECVT before the prior mentioned three names. They provide no source or evidence of this claim. When the edit is removed (twice by me and once by Mwtoews), the edit is later added back again with no sources or references. Because they are not registered on Wikipedia, I do not see any route by which to discuss the accuracy of the statement. A different IP is stated for each edit, but they all trace back to London, UK or Manchester, UK area.
Looking for help on how to resolve this issue without continuing a fruitless Edit War.
Marashdeh (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Nosebagbear and Coryphantha reported by MC (User:141.131.2.3) (Result: No violation)
Page: Gun culture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Coryphantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [96]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]
Comments:
Basically there are a couple of users that seem to want to start an edit war. I made a simple edit to fix an MOS inconsistency and that was quickly reverted with no explanation. I put that one back saying their needed to be an actual explanation for the revert and then separately added another edit citing a specific reference. Both were summarily reverted with a cryptic "NPOV" as the explanation. Both users left little Wikibullying notes on the user talk page. I started a discussion on the article talk page which neither user seems inclined to participate in. I am guessing their must be some history here that I don't know about. I have not gleaned it from the talk page.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, while on vandal patrol I picked up an edit that I believed violated NPOV. I reverted and dropped a NPOV warning (lvl 2), since use of terminology such as "pervasive part of American society" rather than its predecessing language did not seem either NPOV or a MOS amendment. 141.131.2.3 then, after reverting his own change, dropped a vandalism template on my own talk page - diff: [100]. . I replied with a request to talk to me if he had any issues with my reverts rather than just dropping his own warnings Diff response: [101]. This would appear to be their response to my request.
- The poster has also complained about our lack of participation in the talk page comment, but since we weren't linked in that would have been difficult for us to be aware of.
- -- Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Appreciate the reply. Still at most you have explained that you did not like a word choice, but not why you felt the need to simply revert the whole edit (you could easily have offered different wording to address the concern I was trying to repair). Nor have you explained why you felt the need to start accusations of inserting personal commentary in the article.
- And despite the protest about your not being aware of the article talk page, I notice you still have not commented there even now.
- Again, I don't specifically know what the motivation is here but I don't really see good faith behind it.
- -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi MC 141.131.2.3. It's a shame that this discussion couldn't be had by raising questions on a user talk page (or an article one, we just didn't know of it), rather than the Admin Noticeboard. Speaking purely for myself (I've not read through Coryphantha's) I'll answer your questions in order:
- Reversion of whole edit - when I read the edit it had a negative bit (the non-neutrally phrased part) and a potential issue part (reflecting highly ingrained). The previous edit, to me, seemed fine, so reverting it didn't seem to delete clear positive alteration.
- Accusations of personal commentary - the templates used by both me and Coryphantha were standard "Neutral Point of View" warnings. I used it since I felt your change would have made the article read in a less neutral way. It's possible to do this without having a specific personal viewpoint on the issue and I don't feel my use of it by any means indicates either aggressive accusations or wikibullying.
- Talk page - I've not used the wiki talk page since this board takes precedence and I don't want to split any discussions we might have. It's my first time as the accused party on any admin noticeboard afaik, and given potential consequences I'm not inclined to continue work on the area while it is under consideration
- My motivation was solely to remove negative (obviously as I perceive them) edits - I can't have more than a couple of edits on gun control out of all of mine, and afaik we've not met before my initial reversion of your edit. If I wasn't editing in GF, what is the (most likely) motivation I was running off?
- --Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me of my inclusion in this Noticeboard, frankly I do not see why either Nosebagbear or I are here. I apologize for having taken so long to reply to this page as I was taking part in the real world which is evidenced by my break in editing for several hours.
- While on vandal patrol I noticed this unsourced edit regarding gun culture in the United States: "is a pervasive part of American society, reflecting highly ingrained" which appeared to violate WP:NPOV and appears rather to be an opinion which is less than neutral. There are readers and users of various opinions who use and read Wikipedia, and all of the articles should reflect the standard of neutrality that the editors and administrators hold in such high regard. I, of course, am not the only editor who wishes to see WP remain neutral, especially on such a divisive topic as this one.
- I reverted the above edit and the previous one together, the previous one was most likely acceptable, but given the attitude of the second edit by 141.131.2.3 I assumed it was also non-neutral and most likely should have left that one. My reverts cannot possibly be termed "edit warring", however, since that was the only time I visited that page. I apologize for having reverted the first of the two, although I stand by my opinion that the second edit violated Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.
- I did not reply on the article's talk page as I was not pinged and I will not be replying there as I will not be dividing the discussion into two places either.
- About the "little Wikibullying notes on the user's talk page": I use the Wikipedia Twinkle app in my effort against vandalism and the "notes" that were left on 141.131.2.3's talk are prewritten templates that I myself did not write. If 141.131.2.3 has a problem with the message he'll have to contact the person/people who wrote the {{subst:uw-npov1|Article}} template. In retrospect I left a Level 1 warning and Nosebagbear left a Level 2 warning and the two should have been reversed. In my own defense, mine was not the second warning left on his page.
- May I remind 141.131.2.3 that civility is still an important part of Wikipedia. Had he simply alerted me to my inclusion on the article's talk page I would have at least had the chance to reply and back up my argument there when I returned to WP, and this discussion may not have reached the level of animus that it has even before I've even had the opportunity to take part.
- As to "the history", I am not aware of any "history" either. I simply do my part to make Wikipedia a better place, and it would be nice if everyone included in this discussion felt the same way, especially where it concerns divisive topics, Nosebagbear notwithstanding.
- In summary, I do not feel in any way that I, nor Nosebagbear, took part in edit warring as each of us only reverted once. I defend the removal of the NPOV edit for the reasons stated above. Regards and best wishes, Coryphantha Talk 21:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
No violation This report was premature NeilN talk to me 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
User Pragdon reported by Ruhubelent (Result: Pragdon warned}
The user I am going to report is Pragdon. This report is kind of precaution. I have previously reported him for the same issue: He kept on reverting a change I have done without stating any reasons or objections to do so and it seems he started again as he reverted the same article again stating only "VANDALİSM!!!" as a reason where as I have raised my objections a year ago, waited for 6 months and then updated the section with explaining the excerpts I have quoted. I have once reverted his revert but I do not want to end up being blocked again due to the edit-war he launched. I have reported as he started so that I will not violate Wikipedia rules.
Sincerely yours, Ruhubelent (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned Pragdon has never posted on any talk page. They are warned that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. Ruhubelent, in the future please use to create a properly formatted edit warring report. NeilN talk to me 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Dan the Plumber reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: Dan the Plumber warned)
Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [102]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- This edit was made by an IP (could be Dan, idk): [103]
- It was reverted by another user here: [104]
- Dan the Plumber did his first revert here: [105]
- Dan's revert was reverted by another user here: [106]
- Dan's 1RR violation is here: [107]
- I reverted him, based on his 1RR violation here: [108] (three people have now reverted that specific edit)
- Dan committed 2RR here: [109]
- Dan then committed personal attacks against me here: [110]
- Dan was then reverted by yet another person (4 different people have reverted him in total): [111]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions and consensus is needed for addition of reverted edits. [113]
Comments:
Warned Dan the Plumber was not previously properly notified of discretionary sanctions which is a requirement prior to levying sanctions. I've now notified them and logged the notification (Terrorist96, you could have done this as well) so any more reverts will likely result in a block or topic ban. Also, the article is not under a consensus-required restriction. NeilN talk to me 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)