| Revision as of 01:58, 15 April 2018 edit1990'sguy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers23,779 edits →User:Holbach Girl - More than a month of Disruptive edits on Rob Sherman article← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:04, 15 April 2018 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:Holbach Girl - More than a month of Disruptive edits on Rob Sherman article: Consensus means that you have reached agreement with others on what should go in the articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| :::Of course I do not want to be blocked, and will comply with whatever necessary to that end. ] (]) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | :::Of course I do not want to be blocked, and will comply with whatever necessary to that end. ] (]) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Your edits were not "common sense", and the shows you did not wait for a consensus. I tried twice to reach a consensus, adding some of your changes while respecting my very strong objections to your article reorganization and bloated wording, and I offered to look through again fora compromise -- you reverted all three times 100% to your favored version. Also, based on your comments, you appear to have little to no interest compromising to my objections on the reorganization and bloated wording (the things I feel most strongly about) in exchange for your information additions. Ramos explained WP:BRD and disruptive editing to you at least three times, but you appear to have "]" when you commented at the AN3RR noticeboard. His actions are perfectly reasonable. --] (]) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | ::::Your edits were not "common sense", and the shows you did not wait for a consensus. I tried twice to reach a consensus, adding some of your changes while respecting my very strong objections to your article reorganization and bloated wording, and I offered to look through again fora compromise -- you reverted all three times 100% to your favored version. Also, based on your comments, you appear to have little to no interest compromising to my objections on the reorganization and bloated wording (the things I feel most strongly about) in exchange for your information additions. Ramos explained WP:BRD and disruptive editing to you at least three times, but you appear to have "]" when you commented at the AN3RR noticeboard. His actions are perfectly reasonable. --] (]) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Hello {{ping|Holbach Girl}} Another admin has now taken a simpler route by with a week of full protection. I don't see how you can claim consensus when literally nobody agrees with you on the talk page. If it turns out that you can't persuade them, you should take your efforts elsewhere. ] (]) 02:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:04, 15 April 2018
Problems with Spshu at MGM Television
- Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- NewYorkActuary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- King Shadeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MGM Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hey. Sorry to bother you. Perhaps you and/or @Bishonen: can try to resolve this. This has been going on since last week at MGM Television. Basically last month, I've added some sources about MGM Television's foundation and all of a sudden, Spshu called himself messing with the source I've added by adding a .PDF document on the page where on American Radio History's site strictly said "Do not link to search pages for Misplaced Pages citations. These pages are not static and change often." And according to the site master, he said "On the list of search results the Issue Date "1951-01-17-BC-OCR-Page-0012" is the link to an issue containing your search terms ub YYYY-MM-DD and page order. Click on any link to view the actual page." Now I've been using that format for four years so there would be no confusion or violation. So Spshu called himself edit warring me "again" and then NewYorkActuary got involved in the matter. you can check this out. I've just about had enough of this crap, dealing with Spshu always trying to edit war users to have his way and I'm about to hang the towel up editing here! I can't deal with this mess anymore! Can either one of you PLEASE do something about this?? King Shadeed April 2, 2018 23:12 EDT
- @King Shadeed:, it looks as though your edit here makes reference 7 be non-clickable, since you took out the URL from the reference ("C. Pete Jaeger Appointed To Post With New MGM-TV"). Is this what you intended to do? When others reverted your change, they put the URL back. I notice that you discussed this with User:NewYorkActuary at User talk:NewYorkActuary#Broadcasting. In that discussion it's hard to figure out what you are advocating. If you truly believe your approach to making references is better and you intend to revert again you should use WP:Dispute resolution. Maybe this is a case where people don't fully understood each other. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't take the URL out when I first added that. King Shadeed April 6, 2018 01:46 EDT
- Your response is puzzling. Are you saying that you didn't remove the URL? EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't take the URL out when I first added that. King Shadeed April 6, 2018 01:46 EDT
IP 172.251.100.84 again
- 172.251.100.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, I come because, the user 172.251.100.84 has returned to the same thing again, and what he does is ignore the messages, it is really a waste of time to leave messages to him. However, now an account has been created to continue.--Philip J Fry / talk 06:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Notified the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Now blocked one month. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Swetoniusz's sock puppet
- Swetoniusz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jarowkci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, EdJohnston. We've already established that Swetoniusz has no intention to learn how cooperation works on Misplaced Pages. After being blocked, he returned with a sock, Jarowkci. Can we put an end to this? Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the two editors are obviously one and same. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both editors were blocked at SPI per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Swetoniusz. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for AEK Rugby League
An editor has asked for a deletion review of AEK Rugby League. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 5.144.219.199 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you sure? I don't see a deletion review, and you have never posted at WP:DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
3RRNB
No, I'm not here to complain about your close. If anything, I should thank you for finally closing it (after 6 days and 8 other admins visiting at least 26 times, closing 18 reports filed after that one), so 'thank you'. I realize that after that long, semi-protecting the page was just about all you could do.
But I would like to ask, do you know why that report sat there unaddressed for so long? It was a straight-forward 4RR vio, and the reporter wasn't even involved. The user was warned, the other party tried discussing, so it seemed like the report was called for. Was there something wrong with it that I missed? Thanks - WOLFchild 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Neither IP was notified of the filing of a 3RR complaint. In a borderline case, the person may respond and then the admin may get a better idea of what's going on. But if they don't know about the report you won't get a response. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, shit... I forgot. But, that was it? That's the reason every admin ignored it? There's got to be a better way of dealing with situations like that. A head's up or something. Edit-warrior skates on a technicality, it's like the courts. Anyway, like I said, thanks for finally closing it, and at least taking some action, and for the reply. I'll make sure I post the notification next time. - WOLFchild 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- When I first saw the report, I couldn't figure it out. I thought you were claiming that the two IPs were reverting each other. Assuming there was a plain 3RR by the first IP, starting at 11:37 on 3 April, it could have been better to mention that and leave the second IP out of it. Usually sock cases are harder to sort out than 3RRs. My guess is that admins at the 3RR board start with the complaints that are either very blatant or very simple. The others may have to wait. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, shit... I forgot. But, that was it? That's the reason every admin ignored it? There's got to be a better way of dealing with situations like that. A head's up or something. Edit-warrior skates on a technicality, it's like the courts. Anyway, like I said, thanks for finally closing it, and at least taking some action, and for the reply. I'll make sure I post the notification next time. - WOLFchild 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I replied already in the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
I replied already in the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring a comment on my talk page wasn't neccessary since I'm active and I constantly check for any new reply there. I did 3 reverts, not 4, since the 1st one you counted was an edition, but not a revert. We both did 3 reverts, but we took the right way and presented it there, we just want arbitration on the case, well, I want it, I never presented it to block no one. I see out of the way any kind of block either on me or himself since we apport a lot of nice things to the Wiki, and this is not something common. I just wanted some arbitration since that user says it's using a "no flag policy" yet after I added all of these flags, just the Spanish one was consciously removed, and not one but 3 times. So that is no way a "no flag policy" but an action to remove that only flag, since the others were left (and I added them all) so that's why I wanted some counseling here.
Please, remove/undo this edition as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835782915&oldid=835753457 since it's an already blocked sock account the one which did this, and it was removing my changes (reverting them) since neither me or Akerbeltz changed it but this user did it. I'm ok with your conditions btw, but please undo this edition I posted here since that account was clearly made yesterday to put more wood on the fire. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey EdJohnston, can you please revert the last edit of Depotverge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the blocked sock) on the page Basque Country (autonomous community)? Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't plan to revert this edit. Consider using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Holbach Girl - More than a month of Disruptive edits on Rob Sherman article
Hi EdJohnston,
Hope you are doing well today. Appreciate you helping me in the past very much.
In the Rob Sherman article, there has been a disruptive editor (User:Holbach Girl) who has engaged in very disruptive editing since February 28, 2018 til today still. She made some major changes to this article and has been reverted by 5 editors multiple times since then and told to discuss the changes on the talk page to reach a consensus BEFORE adding stuff to the article many times over and over since her edits are disputed. See the article history log for how many times and editors have reverted her.
She has been re-adding her edits on the actual article multiple times when editors have been discussing her edits in the talk page to try to reach a consensus and negotiating with her. Again see the article history and talk page log. To be more precise, she keeps on ignoring the fact that no one has supported her edits and in fact two editors (User:1990'sguy and User:Sdmarathe) have said that her additions are not an improvement (i.e. the article was better organized and worded before her add). It looks like they were on their way to reach some agreements as of yesterday, but she still persisted in re-adding her disputed content without discussing the content on the talk page.
5 editors so far have informed her about WP:BRD in the article talk page or the article edit summary over and over and she still keeps on re-adding without reaching a consensus (as seen in the article history log ).
She has also been warned on her talk page for edit warring on April 12, 2018 by User:MBlaze Lightning but she has simply deleted the warning from her talk page to cover up that she has been warned about edit warring. See her user page history log .
This is constant bad behavior on her part really disrupting too much and she is not taking other editors seriously. She even accused me of making up rules when I quoted WP:BRD procedures, which she is not following at all.
Can you please assist with this situation? Any help would be appreciated. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Reported at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Holbach_Girl_reported_by_User:Capitals00_(Result:_) Capitals00 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Appreciate the help very much. Added some context on the situation there for some clarity. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I've also added some less-skewed context on the situation. I won't repeat it here, but the salient points can be summarized here: My edits were article improvements, not disruptions. Yes, 5 editors joined in to revert every little improvement I made, without giving substantive, actionable reasoning why, with the exception of 1990'sguy. 1990'sguy was the only person to engage with me on specific content matters, but as soon as I addressed his objections, he went silent for weeks, taking the only content discussion voice with him. He only to re-appeared just yesterday to say he was too busy. I've followed Consensus. The fact that I've also followed the Consensus guidance on "common sense" reverting, and reverting after a "reasonable amount of time" has passed without further actionable objections, seems to have upset Huitzilopochtli1990. Especially when I informed him I would no longer be wasting my limited editing time on the Sherman discussion tab responding to his page after page of rule-twisting without a single word of input from him on content improvement. I just don't get Huitz's role in all this; he does sweeping reverts 3 times without discussing them; he demands that I wait "a few days", then changes that to "a week", and then when I realize I'm being played for a dupe and complain, he runs here.
- Of course I do not want to be blocked, and will comply with whatever necessary to that end. Holbach Girl (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits were not "common sense", and the article history shows you did not wait for a consensus. I tried twice to reach a consensus, adding some of your changes while respecting my very strong objections to your article reorganization and bloated wording, and I offered to look through again fora compromise -- you reverted all three times 100% to your favored version. Also, based on your comments, you appear to have little to no interest compromising to my objections on the reorganization and bloated wording (the things I feel most strongly about) in exchange for your information additions. Ramos explained WP:BRD and disruptive editing to you at least three times, but you appear to have "not heard that" when you commented at the AN3RR noticeboard. His actions are perfectly reasonable. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello @Holbach Girl: Another admin has now taken a simpler route by closing the 3RR report with a week of full protection. I don't see how you can claim consensus when literally nobody agrees with you on the talk page. If it turns out that you can't persuade them, you should take your efforts elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits were not "common sense", and the article history shows you did not wait for a consensus. I tried twice to reach a consensus, adding some of your changes while respecting my very strong objections to your article reorganization and bloated wording, and I offered to look through again fora compromise -- you reverted all three times 100% to your favored version. Also, based on your comments, you appear to have little to no interest compromising to my objections on the reorganization and bloated wording (the things I feel most strongly about) in exchange for your information additions. Ramos explained WP:BRD and disruptive editing to you at least three times, but you appear to have "not heard that" when you commented at the AN3RR noticeboard. His actions are perfectly reasonable. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Appreciate the help very much. Added some context on the situation there for some clarity. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)