Revision as of 15:11, 15 January 2014 editAndy Dingley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,388 edits →User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:27, 15 January 2014 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,771 edits →User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: ): commentsNext edit → | ||
Line 362: | Line 362: | ||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | ||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | == ] reported by ] (Result: Mixture) == | ||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hotel California (2013 film)}} <br /> | '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hotel California (2013 film)}} <br /> | ||
Line 389: | Line 389: | ||
* {{pagelinks|Happy Journey}} isn't impressive either, with 5 large repeated blankings over recent days. We are not supposed to work by simple edit-warring and repeating the same deletion over and over. Even if we're Red Pen. ] (]) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | * {{pagelinks|Happy Journey}} isn't impressive either, with 5 large repeated blankings over recent days. We are not supposed to work by simple edit-warring and repeating the same deletion over and over. Even if we're Red Pen. ] (]) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
*{{AN3|n}}. I saw this report late last night right before going to bed and took no action because I was tired. I strongly suspected that there was sock puppetry involved and probably would have blocked based on ]. However, {{U|Dl2000}} filed a at SPI, and a CU has confirmed the socking. Therefore, ], the master, has been blocked for a month, ], the puppet, has been indeffed, and {{user|108.173.141.99}} has been blocked for a month. I can't speak as to whether there are other users besides TRPoD, but {{U|Andy Dingley}}'s filing of this report against TRPoD was made in bad faith, particularly after the first report he filed earlier. As I stated in ''that'' report, either take the issues he has with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. Continuing to harass him may result in a block.--] (]) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:27, 15 January 2014
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
- Additional notes
- When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
- The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
- Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
- Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
- Definition of edit warring
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Joetri10 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Declined/locked)
Page: 2014 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Joetri10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 12 jan 2014 01:17 for Prisonermonkeys , 12 jan 2014 00:32 for Joetri10
Diffs of the users' reverts:
- 12 jan 2014 06:50
- 12 jan 2014 06:53
- 12 jan 2014 06:59
- 12 jan 2014 07:01
- 12 jan 2014 07:24
- 12 jan 2014 07:38
- 12 jan 2014 07:43
- 12 jan 2014 07:54
- 12 jan 2014 08:02
- 12 jan 2014 08:44
- 12 jan 2014 9:23
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2014_Formula_One_season#Explanation_of_the_system_being_used
Comments:
Bitter edit war between two users. Prisonermonkeys has already displayed similar behavior in the past. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Declined. This matter was brought to ANI, and I locked the article. This report should not have been filed. We're done here for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- So you think that the reported behavior is completely acceptable? The page has already been put under full protection less than a month ago as an measurement against edit warring resulting from a content dispute involving the same groups (I hate to admit that I myself was involved in the content dispute) of users as in the current content dispute. This proves that the attitudes fueling them are not temporary. I have refrained to take sides this time. I have initially given my opinion which content I prefer but have not involved myself in the bitter dispute. I have unsuccessfully tried to resolute the dispute on the Talk page by searching a compromise. Now it has descended into pure edit warring. Furthermore, if you take the time to take a look at Prisonermonkeys' talk page you will notice that the user has been reported for edit warring on 4 occasions within the last 7 months. All of this made me decide to report both users. Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that user Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in an other, related (minor) edit war on Template:Formula One teams. You can see this on the template's history . The users made no attempt at all to resolve the dispute on the template's talk page. Tvx1 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- So you think that the reported behavior is completely acceptable? The page has already been put under full protection less than a month ago as an measurement against edit warring resulting from a content dispute involving the same groups (I hate to admit that I myself was involved in the content dispute) of users as in the current content dispute. This proves that the attitudes fueling them are not temporary. I have refrained to take sides this time. I have initially given my opinion which content I prefer but have not involved myself in the bitter dispute. I have unsuccessfully tried to resolute the dispute on the Talk page by searching a compromise. Now it has descended into pure edit warring. Furthermore, if you take the time to take a look at Prisonermonkeys' talk page you will notice that the user has been reported for edit warring on 4 occasions within the last 7 months. All of this made me decide to report both users. Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Lihaas (Result: Warned )
Page: Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: + yesterday I said on other pages that he should discuss the removals first. Also per BRD he needs to discuss, not re-assert his being bold as in the 2nd link above.
Comments:
- The article is under 1RR sanctions per the talk page, and it says there to report incidents here. So I followed the protocol per "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.".Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment : It was up to the understanding. One guy around there promotes the palestinian quotes, while User:Ohconfucius tried to stop it. Hope we don't have to go further, and solve this on talk page instead. I don't see any backup from the original edit warrior anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point of this was the warring, the recverts beyond 1RR which clearly happened.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Warned - User notified of 1RR sanctions. Tiptoety 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no violation. The diff above claiming to be an attempt to discuss is nothing of the sort. It is a revert with the summary "rvt undiscussed removals". It seems that the objection is to me making edits, or most likely, "removal of sourced text" without first discussing with them. I removed blatant quotefarms to the objection of Lihaas. I have stuck to the 1RR: there is no second revert. Lihaas reverts what I wrote, but does not discuss. It is I who goes to the talk page first. Lihaas reverts me and within 20 minutes comes to report me at AN3. I revert them (for the first and only time) and go to the talk page. Lihaas should be reminded to abide by WP's policies and guidelines, and not insist on adding (or preventing removal) of unencyclopaedic material. In particular, that they should observe violate WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#NEWS. I also believe they should avoid recentisms and overuse of quotations. -- Ohc 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- You had 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. I did no t do that. Per 1RR rules you can be blocked withoutwarning. Please be aware of the notice on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:14.198.220.253 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 1 month)
Page: Richard Feynman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: " I doubt Feynman himself shares this speculative POV, removed"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- "it is not just doubt, It is so doubtful that is not worthwhile quoting." (upon my invitation "Better take your doubts to the talk page")
- "If an edit is legitimate, then talk it to talk page? I will confess if you can turn BRD into policy." (upon my "Then take it to the article talk page. See wp:BRD")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invitiations to go to article talk page in edit summaries
Comments:
Technically not 3RR, but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
DVdm (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- Look, one quote is missing, during the discussion I didn't tell you that I refuse to talk, instead I (implicitly) ask you to present your dismay.
- So, your "but behavior clearly indicates.." indicates that you feel that I refuse to talk, well, then make me do it, so you can prove. I want to report you too if you waste administrator time and harass good-faith editor. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I also feel like you refuse to talk, and I base that on the fact that you have not taken the issue up on the talk page, which is what "talk" means, narrowly defined, on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to revert your most recent edit, though there also you're edit warring; I don't disagree with a kind of introduction, really a kind of disclaimer, since as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a quote box there, but you are undoubtedly warring and editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: given that the above IP has continued to edit-war over the article, and has demonstrated similar behaviour in multiple other places, I have started a thread at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 month by User:Floquenbeam. The same IP editor has also been discussed at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Kaj Taj Mahal (Result: No violation)
Page: Talk:James Delingpole (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Darkness Shines is adding the {{editnotice}} template inappropriately, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Edit requests. I removed it, and he put it back.
Later, the template was removed by someone else here. He is already prohibited from reverting edits to articles that pertain to climate change, perhaps the sanction should be extended to talkpages as well.
Also see here where he is warned against edit warring on talkpages. Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- KTM has removed that template twice, and has only filed this non edit warring report because I told him if he removed it again in violation of TPG I would report him. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I removed it twice, and then someone else removed it, because it was an inappropriate use of the template. I filed this because when I tell you the template use is inappropriate, you won't listen. Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- No violation – The discussion on the talk page should continue. The James Delingpole article remains under full protection per another admin. The behavior of DS is only restricted on articles, not talk pages. DS did not break 3RR on the talk page though he isn't doing himself any favors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Florian Blaschke reported by User:Feysalafghan (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran&action=history Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran&action=history Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: i don't have experience with this edit war report so sorry for that, but this user is edit warring i talked to him to do comments and talk to him in his talk page but he isn't acting like an adult. please stop him and is also reverting things on his talk page where i talked to him, take a look
- Funny enough, it's User:Feysalafghan himself who has broken WP:3RR: I reverted 3 times, he reverted 4 times within the 24-hour period. Oops ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
ofcourse because you are constantly reverting my edits i just deleted a sentence which hadn't proof or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Feysalafghan violated 3RR. Florian Blaschke edit-warred. Apparently, Florian thinks that reverting three times is acceptable. Additionally, their edit summaries were unjustifiably attacking and provocative: "No. The sentence is correct. Stop this vandalism, or I'll report you." One of the edit summaries ("I didn't insert the sentence. You deleted it, and you need to justify that.") inherently made no sense. Florian did insert "the sentence", at least as far as I can tell, and, normally, a revert of that addition would trigger WP:BRD. Finally, Feysalafghan is a new editor, although not an angel based on their history, whereas Florian is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User talk:109.78.219.165 & User:Rms125a@hotmail.com reported by User:Tyrsóg (Result: Semi)
Page: Peter O'Toole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.78.219.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- I have been observing the situation on the article and have stayed out of the edit war but both the IP and the above user have been edit-warring and the incivility has escalated between them. The 3RR between them has been breached by both. I think it is disingenuous on the above user's part to imply that it was only the IP that was edit warring. I have also reverted both their edits to a stable version of the article until the dispute has been appropriately resolved. A dispute resolution has been put into place. ÓCorcráin (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did not deny having likely violated 3RR (read ignored self-reporting) but in response to the actions by the unregistered IP, whom I regard as a vandal. I not only self-reported, I opened a dispute resolution as no one else seemed likely to do so. I will serve any 3RR block which may be handed down. Quis separabit? 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, please see my response to User:NeilN's query on the O'Toole talkpage, "Please explain how the edits are vandalism", to which I replied: "I regard them as vandalism as they are unrelenting, intransigent demands, largely by unregistered and anonymous IPs which ignore all explanations, assertions and edit summaries with which they are not in complete agreement. IP demands are for text (in lede or lead) to be phrased exactly as they want it, rejecting all attempts at compromise (i.e. "British and Irish", "Irish-British", "British actor of Irish descent", "British actor of Irish and Scottish descent who later acquired Irish citizenship", et al). Quis separabit? 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)" Quis separabit? 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did not deny having likely violated 3RR (read ignored self-reporting) but in response to the actions by the unregistered IP, whom I regard as a vandal. I not only self-reported, I opened a dispute resolution as no one else seemed likely to do so. I will serve any 3RR block which may be handed down. Quis separabit? 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- What is not vandalism. Looking at you contributions I see you have been an editor here for years with a block log to match, you of all people should not be edit-warring. I really find it difficult to believe that you do not understand what constitutes vandalism and what is subjected to the 3RR. Also next time, please file a proper report and don't think just because you happened to be the first one to file for dispute resolution (before reverting the article in question to your preferred version) means that exempts you, you are not some innocent bystander here. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the vile comment by ÓCorcráin, "You should be used to serving blocks by now ... your block list is mile long" (since changed to "you have been an editor here for years with a block log to match") shows that this user is unprofessional and biased, and lacks good faith. ÓCorcráin was making almost the precise same edits as User talk:109.78.219.165 when ÓCorcráin was actively editing the O'Toole page himself/herself, which I guess is why he/she is actively monitoring the page, thus hardly " innocent bystander" himself/herself either. Quis separabit? 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually no, they are not "precisely the same edits". First point being that I compromised and backed off from the whole issue of nationality and seeing what happened now, I was right to do so. Second point, I distinctly remember how incivil you were to me and others on the talk page, I see that you still are with your accusations, and the only reason that I mention your block list is because you have exhibited the same repeated pattern of disruptive behavior before. I will not be commenting anymore but I suggest that you log off and watch some TV, have a cup of tea and cool down. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. There seem to be five or more reverts by a throwaway IP on the nationality issue. In my opinion, warring over nationality (for a person who may have been born in Ireland in 1932) could fall under the WP:TROUBLES case and we may consider taking out that big hammer soon. Meanwhile, Rms125a@hotmail.com has opened a WP:DRN which seems like a good idea. It would be unfortunate to put full protection on an article of a recently-deceased person because we might miss out on some good contributions. Leaving the nationality field blank (until high quality sources are found) seems an excellent idea and it has been tried elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Arms Jones reported by User:Werieth (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Arms Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590511557 by Flax5 (talk) However you see it, your solution gives the following Doctors the wrong numbers."
- 17:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590513486 by Zythe (talk) exactly, so don't try to give him a number"
- 20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590541194 by Ebyabe (talk) I have already made my point on the talk page, but since you don't want to hear about that I don't take your edit seriously. So I revert it."
- 20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590561417 by Rubiscous (talk) The War Doctor is still not = the Ninth Doctor. I'm just setting the numbering straight."
- 21:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590568061 by Takuy (talk) Still no reason for the wrong numbering without saying anything about it on the talk page first."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated reverts of several users Werieth (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I added a 3RR warning to the user's talk page about seven minutes after the most recent revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have made my position clear on the talk page of that page. None of the others are interested in discussing. User:Ebyabe even deleted my friendly note to him that I actually had used the talk page - which is the reason I reverted his revert of my revision to the page. User:Werieth is only reporting this because he doesn't like my opinion in another matter. Arms Jones (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- A single post to the talk page does not exempt you from following WP:3RR (a list of acceptable exemptions is listed). You are unquestionably edit warring. You need to get consensus on the talk page prior to restoring your edit (there is no timeline, give it a few days, even a week or more to see what consensus develops). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have made two posts on the talk page. Others have urged me to use the talk page without doing it themselves. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Given the issues and previous case where I had to take this user to ANI about edit warring over non-free media, I was just keeping an eye on them for a few days to ensure that no further NFCC issues cropped up, and I stumbled upon this edit war. Reporting it has nothing to do with NFCR. its just a case of 5RR. Werieth (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure it is. You still don't know the nature of non-free media. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards, Ive got probably 25k edits in regards to non-free media enforcement. If you take a look at the discussion at NFCR there is a significant consensus that usage of non-free media in that gallery is unacceptable. You have made a point of not listening to what others say, and making mis-quotes about what others say. So again what defense do you have for edit warring twice in a few days time span? Werieth (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Two different situations which can't be compared. Your history of enforcement doesn't make you an expert. You still don't get the nature of legal protection for coats of arms and started to revert things there without any discussion, while I had already made my point on the talk page just before my revisions and I had to take the matter to another discussion because you just didn't care to; the discussion is far from over so you can't say there's any consensus for any solution yet and the matter of free or non-free images is not the main point in that discussion. Here, I tried to talk from the start but noone took part in the discussion until this situation came up, even if some of the others had urged me to talk, they didn't see I had already started a discussion (one person obviously didn't even want to see that). Arms Jones (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards, Ive got probably 25k edits in regards to non-free media enforcement. If you take a look at the discussion at NFCR there is a significant consensus that usage of non-free media in that gallery is unacceptable. You have made a point of not listening to what others say, and making mis-quotes about what others say. So again what defense do you have for edit warring twice in a few days time span? Werieth (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure it is. You still don't know the nature of non-free media. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. The user made five reverts (all marked as 'Undid' in the history) within 24 hours at Doctor (Doctor Who). As User:Barek has explained above, none of the exceptions to WP:3RR apply to these reverts. User would have been blocked but for the fact that he did not receive a timely 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:La Avatar Korra reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked; Davidmichaelscott warned)
- Page
- Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- La Avatar Korra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "the user Davidmichaelscott should the respective consensus, is making changes on the article. see the history"
- 00:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "should be left in the previous version"
- 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "clean"
- 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "undid."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ariana Grande. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has violated WP:3rr here and is also close to violating it at Ariana Grande discography. This user frequently edit wars on both of these articles. STATic message me! 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The user Davidmichaelscott is already looking consensus on discudion page. I'm no changes, we discuss the user to make consensus and that's what is done. () not if you have something personal with me or the article, but must seek dialogue with me with your words, not just automated messages erroneous. you are the one who make me ill interpret my problems and issues. Thanks. Attentively. Connie (A.K) (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ps: sorry for my english, sorry.
- WP:3rr is very clear and you have been notified numerous times about it, yet you ignore the obvious rule we have. STATic message me! 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- sorry I do not speak much English and I can not explain better. I just want to say that static has been misinterpreting my edits, is the only one that does that to me, he does not seek dialogue. Static at almost every opportunity violated that rule. In this case, I was reversing editions of other user that made without consensus , and to reach consensus, leave in the previous version. In the discussion of the article is consensus. Static, please understand that I have been reversing the earlier editions of the user who made no consensus. Sorry for my english, thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- WP:3rr is very clear and you have been notified numerous times about it, yet you ignore the obvious rule we have. STATic message me! 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I am also warning Davidmichaelscott that future violations of WP:3RR will lead to a block. I'm not blocking you this time because my reading is that your edits were in good faith and you were not warned. In addition, you do not have anything like Connie's disruptive history.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding, sorry for any trouble caused. DavidMichaelScott– talk 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
Page: Mr Whoppit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Contested deletion of sourced article.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- user generated / non notable
- there are alternatives to deletion
- no summary - PROD as " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"
- (since ANEW) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit
Two blankings and redirections, one prod for " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"
This is a minor article, but part of the overall story for Donald Campbell. Donald Campbell isn't well-known on Misplaced Pages and has already been repeatedly blanked from Land Speed Record, but in the UK he's still very well known. Mr Whoppit was his teddy bear mascot, Robin (magazine) was the comic in which it first appeared.
Red Pen is a self-confessed arch-deletionist. See the many other articles that have encountered his editing, or his bright-red editing history. Unusually, he rarely deletes articles outright, but prefers to delete them piecemeal. In this case though, he's attacking a sourced article, twice blanking it with a redirect (and of course no, he didn't attempt to merge any of this content into another article, just blanked it) and then prodding it - almost instantaneously. The prod is on a basis that is simply lying (and very obviously so), " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". There are 9 references cited, some of which are stronger than others, but two are utterly robust: David Tremayne's biog of Campbell Donald Campbell: The Man Behind the Mask, generally considered as a canonical text by an author WP:Notable enough for their own article and also the Daily Telegraph, which describes a family feud and included Whoppit's part in that. Campbell's widow, Tonia Bern-Campbell also discusses Whoppit in her autobiog My Speed King, but no doubt Red Pen will describe that as "COI" on some dubious grounds.
The coverage of Whoppit was removed from the Robin article twice no edit summary . This was not a GF cleanup of that article, as most of it consists (and still does) of a list of redlinks with no sourcing whatsoever. However Red Pen didn't go for any of that, they just went for the Campbell content, which was linked to the sourced article.
There is no credible ground for blanking this article, especially not without any attempt at discussion. This is a regular style of editing by this editor, an editor with a broadly corrosive influence on WP editing for others. If an editor wishes to delete an article, we do of course have AfD - a route that Red Pen has been invited to consider for this article, but they appear unwilling to expose themself to the consensus of others.
This is not about a contested deletion of one article - we have AfD and its many eyeballs for that. This is about a regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour by Red Pen.
- Declined. This is not the right place to bring up a pattern of behavior unless it involves a recent violation of WP:3RR or clear edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:50.138.249.164 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Warned)
Page: List of original programs distributed by Netflix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.138.249.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Repeated reverts without using an edit summary or participating in talk page discussion to rally a consensus for user's edit. IP disruptively undoing reverts by multiple trusted editors.
-- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Warned. I have left a formal warning on the IP's talk page that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. For other administrators, the block should be of sufficient length to take into account the IP's sporadic appearances at Misplaced Pages. I understand the disruption. Every time the IP has edited, even though it may have been days since their last edit, they have done nothing but revert in that article. That said, they have not been warned recently (last time was in December), and it's possible that they were unaware of the talk page discussion. It's generally better to alert an editor, particularly if they're new, that a discussion is taking place.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Synsepalum2013 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: )
Page: Voice to skull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
An unfortunate case of a new contributor who seems not to understand Misplaced Pages policy, and an article which frankly should never have got past AfC (deletion looks a near certainty ). While technically we aren't at 3RR yet, the contributor seems intent on adding claims from individuals concerning a supposed conspiracy involving supposed 'torture' via a (hypothetical) device for transmitting sound to their heads via microwaves. The material, or material much like it, has repeatedly been removed by other contributors, it has been explained that such claims are afforded no credibility by the sources cited - though the specific claims made in the latest edits appear not to be directly supported at all in at least one of the sources cited. While I'm reluctant to ask for a block for a new contributor who would never have been put in such a position if the AfC process had worked properly in the first place (the article, when approved, was a dreadful mess of WP:OR/synthesis ), I suspect that without such a block, the contributor is going to carry on adding dubiously-sourced claims of conspiracies until the article is finally given the boot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Mixture)
Page: Hotel California (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Muthalathu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Repeated blanking of a substantial section of an Indian film review because Red Pen would appear to not like the quality of the review sites cited as sources.
Whether this edit is right or wrong, we have a policy against edit-warring because edit-warring is of itself disruptive. We relax this in some copyvio or BLP cases, but we do not relax it over minor content disputes. This editing (on an article I admit I have zero interest in) is just the latest example of Red Pen's arrogant editing style: he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored. I see no attempts at discussion on the article talk: or any obvious user pages.
No doubt this is not bright-line 3RR owing to careful timing between reverts. Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details. However WP:EW is quite specific: edit-warring is edit-warring and it's not necessary to breach 3RR for it to be so.
Do we still care about tendentious edit-warring?
- Multiple attempts at opening communication at both the user page and his ip page resulted in and Andy's petty revenge for me nominating his Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit are a bit sad and juvenile, but not unexpected.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Per the suggestion from EdJohnston I will not edit the article for a week.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I admit I discovered this article of yours when looking at your edit history re: another article, where you're trying to delete an article with a dozen sources for failing WP:GNG. However six repeats is six repeats, whatever else you're up to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another example of Andy wikihounding and harassing users he is in a disagreement with. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Happy Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) isn't impressive either, with 5 large repeated blankings over recent days. We are not supposed to work by simple edit-warring and repeating the same deletion over and over. Even if we're Red Pen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note. I saw this report late last night right before going to bed and took no action because I was tired. I strongly suspected that there was sock puppetry involved and probably would have blocked based on WP:DUCK. However, Dl2000 filed a report at SPI, and a CU has confirmed the socking. Therefore, User:Muthalathu, the master, has been blocked for a month, User:MattAtMallu, the puppet, has been indeffed, and 108.173.141.99 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a month. I can't speak as to whether there are other users besides TRPoD, but Andy Dingley's filing of this report against TRPoD was made in bad faith, particularly after the first report he filed earlier. As I stated in that report, either take the issues he has with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. Continuing to harass him may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)