Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive353

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Tarage reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Blade Runner 2049 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on talk page

Comments:

Attempts to resolve disputes on talk page have been met with hostility from Tarage, including repeated threats to refer editors who disagree with him to admin noticeboards. Attempts to warn him of his behaviour on his talk page have been met with a dismissive attitude to edit-warring and 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes to compile the full story so I can show you how this started with Prisonermonkeys and how he has continued to edit war despite no consensus and how this follows his old pattern that caused him to be blocked numerous times in the past. --Tarage (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment To be honest I think this is a hasty report. The diffs compiled above are slightly misleading because Tarage has only made three sets of reverts (some of the reverts listed are contiguous edits that comprise a single edit), so he hasn't technically broken 3RR. By the same token Prisonermonkeys has edited the disputed content three times as well, although only two are reverts. In other words there has been no 3RR violation and the edit-warring is very minimal. A block for either editor would be a harsh decision at this stage. There is a discussion on the talk page and time could be more productively spent if this minor dispute were resolved there. What I suggest is using the credited name as presented in the actual film credits as an interim arrangement, and if either of you wish to change that to something else then obtain a consensus on the talk page before making the alteration. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Timeline of events:
  1. [7] - Latest removal of Joi without a corresponding revert, the start of this issue.
  2. [8] - My revert
  3. [9] - My attempt at engagement in the edit/revert/discuss cycle
  4. [10] - Second removal, this time without clear consensus as discussion was still taking place on the talk page
  5. [11] - My second revert
  6. [12] - Third removal, no consensus
  7. [13] - My third revert
  8. [14] - Revert by Walter Görlitz who had previously incorrectly dismissed an edit request to clarify K's fate due to his miss-reading of a source provided. I consider this to be a misunderstanding of the situation on his part.
  9. [15] - My revert of his revert, again to restore the article to how it was before the edit war began
  10. [16] - Fourth removal by Prisonermonkeys, who still has no consensus
  11. [17] - Fourth revert, this time by Walter Görlitz who attempted to remind Prisonermonkeys that he does not have consensus for this removal.
  12. [18] - Fifth removal
  13. [19] - My fifth revert, my fourth of his removals.
Okay. For a quick rundown, on October 9th, Prisonermonkeys attempted to remove the character Joi from the plot summary. He had been doing this for several days, each time someone else coming along and re-adding her to the plot. The difference is on the 9th, I noticed his removal, disagreed, and replaced the content. At this point, since he had been clearly reverted, the next step would have been to go to the talk page to discuss it. You'll notice in my diff log that this is exactly what I did when I attempted to engage him on his talk page. After seeing his stuborness and determining that we would not reach an agreement, I suggested we take it to the article's talk page, where I numerous times tried to get him to stop his circular argument and wait for other input. I admit, I was getting frustrated with his behavior and was acting less than civil, but by this point his behavior was becoming aggravating. The talk page discussion continued, but every time he thought he had the upper hand, or perhaps because he thought no one would notice, he removed Joi from the plot without consensus. I count four removals beyond the point at which he should be removing it. Frankly, this behavior fits his pattern, as he has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, the last being in December of 2015. He clearly has not learned his lesson, and I suggest that an administrator remind him of the importance of 3RR, which he has failed to demonstrate an understanding of. --Tarage (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Cripes, I didn't even realize he was reporting me for a completely different set of edits. Okay. In that case, please look at the history above which I have posted which clearly demonstrates that he is currently engaged with an edit war and should be blocked to prevent any more damage. Apologies for the confusing jump, but I've been compiling this information in the event that he reverted me again and misunderstood the initial report.
To sum it up, he's been edit warring about the inclusion of Joi in the plot for days. The timeline above shows the events as they occurred. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan — I will freely acknowledge that I am not as familiar with the stylistic conventions of WP:FILM as I am with the conventions of other WikiProjects, which is probably where some of the confusion has come from.

Also, Tarage would have you believe that I have "clearly not learned my lesson" given my history of blocks; however, the last was in December 2015, and I have not bern subject to any admin investigations—much less sanctions—since, and have clearly demonstrated a change in behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
If you've learned your lesson, why are you repeatedly removing Joi's inclusion in the plot even though multiple editors have told you that there is no consensus to do so? Please explain this, I'd LOVE to hear it. --Tarage (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Because there is no consensus to include it. Everyone involved in the discussion has been ambivalent to it. Your entire argument for inclusion hinged on the actor's appearance on the film poster, but the one thing the multitude of comments agree on is that that is an invalid argument. Now your argument amounts to "it was always here", and you haven't addressed any of the counter-arguments that have been raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk)`
1. I'm not the only one arguing for her inclusion. 2. The edit cycle is change, revert, discuss. Why do you fail to understand this most basic concept? 3. You didn't answer my question. Where is the consensus to remove her? Surely you don't think it exists on the talk page, where four separate people have disagreed with you... --Tarage (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You know what? No, I'm not getting dragged into your endless arguments again. You have shown an inability to understand or accept any argument other than your own. You don't understand 3RR, you don't understand change/revert/discuss, and trying to debate with you is a waste of time. I invite anyone else to take a look at what has occurred and give their opinions. If I'm wrong, so be it. I'm not going to keep doing this with you. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── What "four separate people who disagreed with you? Here are some highlights from the discussion:

"I don't care if she's in or not. [...] If pruning Joi is an easy way to reduce the detail, that would be a good place to start."
"I don't see any harm in her inclusion"
"The only thing I'd say she could be relevant plot wise was her emitter's destruction. Other than that is unneeded and bloat"
"these highlights are essential to the story of K and Joi, which is one of the primary elements in the film. It is true that these don't intersect much with the MacGuffin detective story,"

This is hardly conclusive. In fact, the discussion as a whole is inconclusive. The key difference is that your arguments were refuted, but mine were not. As such, I made those edits based on the conversation as a whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I invite anyone, everyone, to come to the talk page and observe the discussion. If anyone, ANYONE says that there is clear consensus that Joi shouldn't be included based on the current discussion, I'll let it go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blade_Runner_2049 --Tarage (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Are there spoilers? I'm not going if there are. -Roxy the dog. bark 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sadly yes, these are spoilers. --Tarage (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Normally I would be happy to dive into this but I'm in the same boat as Roxy. I think a good many editors are going to be reluctant to get involved in this discussion if they are planning to watch the movie. Your best bet would be to post a request at WT:FILM and make it clear you need editors who have seen the film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. But you would agree that nothing should be changed UNTIL consensus is made, correct? This seems to be the point Prisonermonkeys is completely failing to understand. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with retaining the WP:STATUSQUO until the dispute is resolved one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You're implying that if there is no clear consensus to remove her, then there is a clear consensus to keep her. But that is a misrepresentation because there is no clear decision one way or the other, which is why I made the edits based on the strength of the comments. The arguments to keep her were refuted, but the arguments to remove her went unaddressed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus remove her AND no consensus to keep her. There is no consensus PERIOD. Again, the point is, when there isn't consensus, you keep the article how it was. You MUST gain consensus to add or remove something if people object. That's how Wikipedia works. That you continue to completely fail to understand this core concept is concerning at best. YOU don't get to decide which arguments are refuted. YOU ARE INVOLVED. --Tarage (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect Ed, I don't think this will solve the issue. Given Prisonermonkeys's inability to understand consensus and edit warring, I fear we'll be back here shortly. I invite any and all editors who have an interest in this topic or who have seen the movie to join the conversation. I welcome it. Please. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Geardeath reported by User:Morty C-137 (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Roy Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geardeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20] Deleted content, edit summary "Removed a biased source."
  2. [21] Reverted Volunteer Marek, edit summary "It's a biased source for pure entertainment, it doesn't fit in this context. We don't just jam random quotes from people into pages."
  3. [22] edit summary " It is happening because it's true, it's a source of entertainment and sensualism? Don't see what your problem is, this is a tug of war innit."
  1. possible sockpuppet or user logged out to hide their name - [23] IP address reverted MrX with edit summary of "MrX ➡ MrTrans ➡ reverting per WP:REVERTRANNY". They were quickly reverted by Doug Weller [24].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
Geardeath (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) on Roy Moore has been repeatedly attempting to remove well sourced WP:RS material from CNN with false edit summaries including ""Removed a biased source", "It's a biased source for pure entertainment, it doesn't fit in this context.", and "It is happening because it's true, it's a source of entertainment and sensualism? Don't see what your problem is, this is a tug of war innit.)". Account despite existing since 2010 has only made 12 edits and seems to be a likely vandalism-only (edits such as [26], replacing all of an individual's name with "SETH") sockpuppet. Shortly after the user was reported to WP:AIV, an IP address made an identical revert with a wholly inappropriate transphobic edit summary against MrX. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

User:81.92.27.129 reported by User:Meters (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Omar Khadr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.92.27.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30] Fake edit summary "See talk page" when IP had not started new thread and had not added anything to previous thread
  4. [31] After final warning
  5. [32] After Edit Warring warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. previous discussion: Talk:Omar_Khadr#Possible_bad_edit (July and August)
  2. current discussion: Talk:Omar_Khadr#Lede_edits_again (Started by IP after he made three reversions and was given final warning for making these edits with fake edit summaries. Two more reversions made after thread started but before anyone had responded.)

Comments:

Multiple IPs have previously made these same changes. Meters (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. IP edit warring on a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:117.103.88.68 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Genesis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.103.88.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] [41]

Comments:
Slow burning edit war with an IP who keeps setting the band back to "active" in the infobox despite all parties who commented on the talk page saying otherwise. As I have contributed significantly to the article, I won't take any direct action as I am WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:47.21.229.36 reported by User:Snowflake91 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Kim Hyo-yeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.21.229.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
User edit warring and keep on changing the main image of the article (which was used for several months with no problems) without seeking any consensus, despite the fact that the picture he is adding is worse in quality, while the infobox pictures should be the best images available. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. The named IP broke 3RR but has not edited elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ballastpointed reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Kevin Deutsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ballastpointed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 02:01, 10 October 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 21:40, 14 October 2017
  2. diff 17:52, 15 October 2017
  3. diff 17:14, 16 October 2017
  4. diff 21:50, 16 October 2017
  5. diff 22:44, 16 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (blocked for edit warring Sept 22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: pretty much all of Talk:Kevin Deutsch plus two ANI threads, here and now here

Comments:

Account is a SPA with strong POV advocacy on this controversial figure. Longer block needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m not sure how what I’ve inserted in my edits could possibly be characterized as “strong POV advocacy.” I’m simply neutralizing the one-sided/conclusory/unsubstantiated language @snowfire insists on using, which is not the language used in the article sources. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I am violating any rules. I am not. I am open to discussing all of these matters, and have repeatedly requested a third party arbitrate this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talkcontribs) 03:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ballastpointed: Please ping users in administrative threads, especially ones you are smack-talking (i.e. me).
Anyway, see Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Ballastpointed claims he's interested in collaboration, but there hasn't been much of it lately, and even if he was going to the talk page, it doesn't change Wikipedia's policies like WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Unfortunately there is a vast gulf in interpretation of reality here, as I am quoting the (reliable) sources very closely, but you somehow see something else in them, while also liking to quote Deutsch directly a lot. WP:SECONDARY indicates that the approach that favors the news articles is preferred. As for the lede, WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that emphasis be placed on what Deutsch is most famous for in secondary sources - the accusations around him. You have been challenged on the talk page to find good, long-form, non-trivial sources on his journalistic career or his books, and haven't. SnowFire (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – User was previously blocked 1 week for edit warring on the same article and has been reported twice at ANI. They appear to have no interest in following policy. It looks like they will continue pushing their POV on this one article indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:70.209.197.196 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
70.209.197.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. And a third time.
  2. 07:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805728072 by Oshwah (talk) The edits were explained, some claims made in the previous edit are false. No non-redundant references were removed."
  3. 07:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805726702 by Jim1138 (talk) Undoing automated edit"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Page is under a 1RR restriction. User blanked warnings/request to self-revert on their talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Added sanctions notice and 3RR notice diff above. Jim1138 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP's most recent action was to use the talk page, but I'm not convinced they wouldn't revert back again after a lack of a response, so a block is the best option here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Crr12ry12hfmn reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crr12ry12hfmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:41, 16 October 2017 , changing age of earth to 6,000 years.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 23:45, 16 October 2017
  2. diff 23:55, 16 October 2017
  3. diff 23:58, 16 October 2017
  4. diff 00:02, 17 October 2017
  5. diff 00:06, 17 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (nope; nothing really to talk about, as this is pure advocacy for young earth creationism

Comments:

Admins are welcome to act under the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience (as well as plain old 3RR of course). Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jtbobwaysf reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 01:55, 7 October 2017‎, tagging content expressing medical consensus on a controversial topic, in a featured article, as being based on a primary source when it is clearly secondary per MEDDEF

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 21:07, 7 October 2017 restores it
  2. diff 22:12, 7 October 2017 restores it
  3. diff 03:57, 12 October 2017 restores it
  4. diff 05:28, 14 October 2017 adds content going at the same issue
  5. diff, 09:04, 14 October 2017 restores that after it was reverted for being POV

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Water_fluoridation#NPOV_issues_in_controversy_section

Comments:

Jtbobwaysf appears to have strong views, but is editing aggressively beyond their competence (doesn't understand what an FA is (diff, diff) and the initial tagging of the 2ndary source a one that is clearly secondary per WP:MEDDEF). Unfortunately they are being egged on by Quackguru (which is extremely unfortunate as we get all kinds of editors with strong opinions on this topic), but the edit warring is still their own responsibility. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I dont know all the terms such as FA and EWN, and I think there is a policy of using abbreviations. At least an experienced editor like him can put the brackets in so I can read about it. I still dont know what EWN is, maybe it is this noticeboard nomination? I asked him what EWN was on the talk page by the way.
First about the MEDDEF, this earlier ADA source was removed and contains nothing related to MEDDEF. It is simply a list of organizations that support a particular activity. There was nothing on the ADA page that stated anything about their position. It is my opinion that the ADA's view on something would be primary, another editor agreed with my position on the talk page, and later I conceded that point in the talk page discussion anyhow.
Second, the ADA source was later removed by one of the editors, mabye jytdog himself, seeking a better source to support the sentence. That new source is the Pizzo source, and it also doesn't support the content and clearly jyt has a big problem with the sentece being taged. This is the first time I have seen such a blowup about tagging a sentence. You will note that I have stopped tagging it already, and added a second sentence with content from the same Pizzo source, and that is what caused this nomination I guess.
Third doing a noticeboard nomination is in this case Wikipedia:WikiBullying which jyt is doing, and took to swearing at me on my talk page saying "Read the F*cking Book." Him editing and disagreeing with a few edits over a span of a week is far from the definition of edit warring. Editing, reverting, discussing sources, this is the process of wikipedia. However, swearing on my talk page, that is bullying.
The bullying is an attempt to support his apparent WP:OWNERSHIP on this page. Take a look at the edits I made, and the blatent misreprenstation of the sources in this section when I started editing a week or so ago. This seems to be one of those articles that unless you follow the opinion of the primary editor, they will go to war with you to try to get you to leave. For example, look at how jyt created this whole new talk page section Talk:Water_fluoridation#Source_review trying to start a discussion of sources that are not even used on the page...
There is a pretty lengthy discussion in this talk page section Talk:Water_fluoridation#NPOV_issues_in_controversy_section that might assist the person deciding on this administor noticboard to read the history. Thanks for your time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The point here, is that you are unambiguously edit warring. That is what this board is focused on, like a laser. I expect that you will be blocked as you have been reverted by multiple editors, or the article may be locked to prevent further disruption. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
What is going on at this Water fluoridation article is a WP:CIRCUS. I have followed my obligation to attempt to engage the page's editors on the talk page, and explained my edits and encouraged discussion. Indeed, maybe I drifted off topic above by discussing on this noticeboard page the content and history in question, but I thought the admin who would review this case might be curious. 5 reverts over the span of a week on content that has changed multiple times during that timeframe (maybe due to my efforts to show the content fails verficiation), is not edit warring.
Response to jytdog's Diffs of the user's reverts:
First issue, tag of ADA source.
  1. diff 21:07, 7 October 2017 This edit I added a tag that showed the ADA content & source failed verification, and it failed on many levels. I should have been more detailed in my edit summary.
  2. diff 22:12, 7 October 2017 I thought maybe more explanation might be helpful and by now I already engaged in a talk page discussion of this and when my WP:PRIMARY argument was pointed out as wrong, I dropped it. This ADA source has now been deleted, as probably due to this discussion. Therefore, my tagging of the content appears at least from the history to have been warrented.
Second issue: tag of Pizzo source
  1. diff 03:57, 12 October 2017 This is the new Pizzo source that replaced the ADA source, as the ADA source was deleted and replaced by one of the editors arguing it could support the content. This is the one and only time I tagged this Pizzo source that supported broad "medical consenus" claims.
Third issue, adding new content from the Pizzo source
  1. diff 05:28, 14 October 2017 I added content coming from the Pizzo source. This content was later reverted with the reverting editor saying this in the edit summary, "WP:CLOP+misprepresentation." Note I did spend quite a few minutes trying to re-write the sentece so it would not violate plagarism.
  2. diff, 09:04, 14 October 2017 This was not reverted for POV as you argue. This article was reverted here [48] with editor stating "Make better sense of "in caries reduction" and then try again.)". This edit was my attempt to resolve the WP:CLOP issue.
In summary you are attempting to assert that three different issues, where an editor reverted my edits a grand total of 5 times over a week or more on content that was changed over time (by others and myself), lacks basis to find that I have engaged in edit warring, and my comments on the talk page should appear civil to a third party. There have never been 3 reverts of my added content on this page, and I haven't reverted anyone to my recollection. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Jtbobwaysf, you messed up. It is irrelevant if the content passes or fails verification. I only added a tag and rewrote the content. Then a different source was used with different content. Consensus overrules other policies. If Jytdog and others agree I can easily rewrite the content. If they don't then so what. At least I am enjoying the show! QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. 3RR was not violated, and the issues are too confusing for me to tell if there is a long-term edit war. This kind of issue is well suited to an WP:RFC. There is disagreement as to what wording in the article would most accurately summarize the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:ArtemTacoLover reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ArtemTacoLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale."
  2. 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "The Xbox 360 E is still on sale. Do I need to repeat again?"
  3. 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Stop."
  4. 19:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Xbox 360 E console is still on sale."
  5. 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Xbox 360. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Xbox 360 E */ new section"
Comments:

User continues to revert without telling the difference between a company's production line versus units still on the shelf. An attempt at a Talk page discussion was ignored. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:GoguryeoHistorian reported by User:Akocsg (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
South Korea–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
GoguryeoHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Fourth time
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user simply deletes a whole passage, which is relevant to the article, as can be seen in similar articles, and then continues to threaten me and accuse me who reinstates the sourced content of "pushing POV and vandalising". Many unrightful threats have also been issued by him in the edit summaries. My edit-warring warning on his talkpage was simply deleted and then copied into my own talkpage by him. Akocsg (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

At first i have started a disccusion, second i said you that the source does not mentione your claims, third, you use non reliable sources(turkish newspapers..). Again, this has nothing to do with modern relations between s.korea and turkey. Also the source does not support your claim at all. You broke the 3th rever rule, you are not willing to discuss but you claim to be right. You was already many times blocked, and you are blocked on "de.wikipedia" aswell. You was already involved in many other edit-wars and you was currently warned by an administrator because of distruptive edits. Stop it. --GoguryeoHistorian (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The user above apparently is turning out to be a sockpuppet user and ethno-POV account on a mission. Some other users already observed the same and reported him here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/213.162.72.246 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian
Regards Akocsg (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week GABgab 01:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.252.87 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: )[edit]

He keeps changing the images in 1993, removing Pat Nixon’s image for no reason, he keeps changing people’s nationalities from the U.K. (e.g. English to British), Russian to Soviet (stop doing that from a previous IP with the same 124.106.xxx.xxx behaviour from articles before 1991.). Please help. Gar (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc_James reported by User:92.194.54.218 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Doc_James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts

All reverts done today (19 October 2017‎) and yesterday (18 October 2017‎), four-ish in total, with virtually zero constructive work.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

All diffs done today (19 October 2017‎), equals all diffs after and including revision 806027301.

Comments:

Keeps reverting tons of proper editing without comment or communication, then blames me. Please see edit history of article, alongside with these explanations and collections of edit differences Talk:Oxcarbazepine#Summary, User_talk:Doc_James#Shoot_first.2C_ask_questions_later., and the above statements in his gross attempt to actually ban me. I did explain my actions in summary lines. I completely overhauled the article. However, Doc_James keeps reverting all changes without any sensible comment whatsoever. His different options would be to first ask on user talk page, so he can receive an explanation on what he doesn't understand, and to apply the fixes of minor issues he finds in large edits or consecutive edit bundles, instead of reverting them fully. No attempt to seriously communicate has been done whatsoever, apart from citing "zero response" to a talk page section which wasn't in the least bit relevant any more at that time; see my response there. No change in lack of sensible use of summary line has been implemented, either. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pertains to issue above.
This IP has made more than 8 reverts in that time period. They have been reverted by three different editors (with me being one).
I started a talk page discussion yesterday.
I have not surpassed 3 reverts in 24 hrs. Nor Have I insulted anyone involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Doc_James did reversions with IDs 806055504, 805963222, 805959693, 805899611. Thats four. Accidentally counted a self-revert first, too. Why those reversions are malicious is as outline above.
  • As much as I didn't want to comment on this as I am an uninvolved editor (and also, not and admin), I feel like like maybe a third-opinion might help instead of just involved parties going at each other. I have no knowledge of the subject area so I cannot comment if any of the additions/removals are factually wrong or not.
I took some time to compose a timeline which might help in assessing this matter:
  • 10:14, 18 October 2017‎ - Doc James' first revert
  • 18:47, 18 October 2017‎ - IP's first revert
  • 18:51, 18 October 2017 - IP posts on Doc James' talk page under the title Shoot first, ask questions later.
  • 18:55, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' replies asking why interactions and summary in the lead were removed
  • 18:56, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' second revert
  • 19:00, 18 October 2017 - Doc James posts on the talk page of the article asking the same question under the title Summary
  • 19:21, 18 October 2017 - IP explains the edit on Doc James' talk page
  • 19:23, 18 October 2017‎ - IP's second revert
  • 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' warns about 3RR on his talk page
  • 19:25, 18 October 2017 - Doc James' third revert
  • 19:52, 18 October 2017 - IP complains about the reverts on Doc James' talk page
Further edits by IP on the article
  • 11:24, 19 October 2017‎ - Doc James' fourth revert
  • 11:34, 19 October 2017 - Samsara applies page protection to Oxcarbazepine
  • 11:38, 19 October 2017 - IP replies to Doc James' question on talk page of the article
  • 11:46, 19 October 2017 - Doc James' replies to IP's answer
  • 12:04, 19 October 2017 - IP informs Doc James about edit warring noticeboard report
  • 12:10, 19 October 2017 - IP further defends his edits on talk page of the article [Actually: "her edits" :-) 92.194.54.218]
Edits by Doc James: I feel this edit here by Doc James was inappropriate. The revert undid all the edits done by the IP whereas the edit summary only addressed a part of the revert. The part it addressed was also incorrect, as the IP pointed out, it wasn't removal of the "side effects", it was a merge. This was a repetition of the previous revert and didnt seem to provide any further reasoning. Same for this edit. Not sure about this edit since I dont understand the context of that edit summary.
"[…] since I dont understand the context of that edit summary", well neither do I; it's incomprehensible. All I see is, that it undoes all the work again. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Edits by IP 92.194.54.218: From a cursory look over edits, I feel they were justified and accurate to their edit summaries (at least, the ones which focused on content and not talk-backs to reversions). The edit summary in this edit was uncalled for. There's no need to be throwing insults at people. Also, Doc James' edits are not vandalism. From WP:VANDAL, vandalism means "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". I am sure Doc James does not intend to defeat the project's purpose.
Well, frankly, the purpose of the edit which "was uncalled for" was twofold, equally to vent and to protest. While I do see that I should apologise, I still don't truly want to. IP edits are subject to completely unexplained and arbitrary reversions all the time; never any questions beforehand, never any consideration for the big picture by fixing minor mistakes and thereby keeping the improvement. The only thing which makes this incident a staggering example is that I showed even the slightest amount of persistence and two reverters were involved. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think its best that IP's edits are restored (since they appear to be constructive and their arguments against Doc James' concerns seem valid). As for any sanctions or blocks, I'd say there's no reason for such action. I'd prefer if the only end result of this is that the page becomes better for the readers. Doc James' made the edits due to his concerns about the IP's edits. The IP made edits because they felt it made the page better and blocking them would just mean shooing away another editor who intends on improving the encyclopaedia. Although the situation could've been handled better had discussion started earlier on without any reversions, both editors had good intentions. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. Doc James originally reported 92.194.54.218 (above) and now 92.194.54.218 is reporting Doc James as a separate incident. Is there more to this than a tit for tat reprisal? Would it not make sense to consolidate the two discussions into a single thread, assuming this one has any possible merit at all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Citobun reported by User:STSC (Result: Both editors blocked)[edit]

Page: 2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

The user has been persistently and indiscriminately reverting edits with wild accusations and repeated personal attacks on other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talkcontribs)

I apologise for the reverts. However, this comes after YEARS of dealing with this user's disruptive editing. The reporting user is a long-term political agenda editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she has been sanctioned in the past for agenda editing with regard to Falun Gong topics, and has been reported numerous times for pushing a low-level, long-term, pro-Beijing campaign of Wikipedia censorship that is blatantly incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Removing photos of the Taiwanese president without any reasoning grounded in Wikipedia policy, removing mention of the Taiwanese government for no reason – it all just amounts to disruptive, low-level vandalism. Secondly, I have not made personal attacks on other users and I object to that unsubstantiated allegation. Complaining about political agenda editing, a violation of Wikipedia policy, does not constitute a personal attack. Lastly I suggest the closing admin Ctrl+F my talk page for "STSC" for an idea of this user's inclination toward reporting me for objecting to his/her groundless censorship. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – 24 hours. I suggest that Citobun lay off the abuse of STSC in the edit summaries ('long term political agenda editor'). It does not clarify the issues for the closing admin, and if it were taken to ANI it is unlikely that any action would be taken against STSC on those grounds. The issues you were warring about on this article could be settled by ordinary WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Montego Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Joe V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "talk page open if you wish"
  2. 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "notoriety established"
  3. 06:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Notability established. One person is an Actress in Indonesia with a wiki Page and the other is a notable individual who meets requirement of notability."
  4. 05:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "External articles were provided establishing the individuals notability as per the guidelines of Wikipedia."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "ew notice" 1st EW notice
  2. 05:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Montego Bay"
  3. 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "/* October 2017 */ reply"
  4. 06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Montego Bay." 2nd EW notice
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussions were had on User talk:Joe V

Comments:

Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also adding to this noticeboard discussion to note that 3RR was also reached by Joe V at Mandeville, Jamaica. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
1066 Granada massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2405:205:220C:A9A9:0:0:13E4:C0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

2405:205:220F:87E:0:0:174D:D0B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806129676 by Operator873 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Unsourced edits */ new section"
Comments:

Previous reverts at [59]. Warned at [60] agtx 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Unsourced changes and 3RR violation by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Brownlife reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page
Tanya Plibersek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Brownlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "stop edit warring. it was already in article. You deleted it. i disagreed and restored it. Now take it talk if you so please"
  2. 08:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "It was already in the article. You deleted it. We can *talk* if you want. But do not keep edit warring."
  3. 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805918552 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) stop edit warring."
  4. 21:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805590769 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tanya Plibersek. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

N/a – Brownlife has refused to provide a reason for their edits and incorrectly claims the onus is on me to get consensus for the undiscussed changes.

Comments:

Brownlife wants to add Tanya Plibersek's husband to her article's lead, despite him already being mentioned in the infobox and in her "personal life" section. I have told them several times that this is non-standard, and pointed out that no other similar articles mention the subject's spouse so prominently. They have been edit-warring from the get-go, including after being given a warning, and have provided zero reasons for why the standard should be broken in this case. They are now blatantly lying about having added the content in the first place. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don;t accuse me of "blatant lying" I take that as an attack. The truth is that he edit was in article since February 2017 and unchallenged for 8 months.[61] Iver came to Wikipedia a few weeks ago and felt they might delete it. I disagreed and reverted once. Asked them to instead take it to the 'talk page' and we could discuss it in a civil way if they so please. They didn't and instead kept reverting and tried edit warring their preferred version into the article without talking about it on the talk page first to get consensus for their desired edit That's about all their is to it. I have not reverted again but it seems they have again reverted 3 times in 10 hours to try and game the system. They crossed the 3 revert line in doing so. The lead is a summary of the main points in the article itself Ivar, that's the way leads work.Brownlife (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, you don't seem to understand that the onus is on *you* to gain consensus for *your* addition of content. You don't get to add whatever you want into articles and then wildly revert anyone who challenges it. Asking you to follow process isn't "gaming the system". You've now admitted that you were the one that made the first edit, whereas *twice* before you said "It was already in the article". If that's not blatantly lying, I don't know what is. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Brownlife is now edit-warring on a second page. Their motivation seems to be to draw attention to the fact that Plibersek's husband is a convicted drug smuggler, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

198.161.86.10 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Slavery in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.161.86.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [63] Reported IP
  2. [64] a second IP, from the same geolocation, restored the first IP's edit shortly after it was undone
  3. [65] The second IP then extended the edit
  4. [66] First IP restored the gist of the combined edits
  5. [67] First IP
  6. [68] First IP


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • [69] informally as part of an IP hopping warning
  • [70] formal EW warning after IP restored the edit again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

IP:92.194.54.218 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Oxcarbazepine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.194.54.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73] (1st)
  3. [74] (2nd)
  4. [75] (3nd)
  5. [76] (4th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per here [77] an experience IP which is hoping from one IP to another.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
We may need a range block on this IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to block anything, because 1. Doc James did not ask first, he reverted first. 2. Doc James claimed side effects were removed, while they were in fact merged 3. Doc James claimed trial at discussion on the talk page of the article collides, time wise, with me telling him to ask first, if he doesn't understand the world around him, not revert first 4. That article is now full of unsourced, and in fact wrong, percentages in regard to side effects, uses silly abbreviations, has no sensible structure, cites /only/ an arbitrary selection of many dozens of drug interactions for no good reason whatsoever, and I've lost count of what else. Besides a ton of style and white space issues to horrifying to even think of. Which leads me to 5. I won't be editing again any time soon. Go enjoy your burnt soil, sit in your own shit. Have fun. Great way to treat experienced, knowledgable editors, by the way. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I've changed my mind. Many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours misspent on a project with a community consisting of too many ignorant entities void of decent education, too “bigly” on their self-righteous path to either comment their reversions using the summary line or apply the minor changes they wish to see in large overhauls. I'll make this one real easy for you: I'll fix is article, again. Step by step. And I'll call my fixes reversions. because that's what they are. Then, please, block my whole IP range, and relieve me of the compulsion to work towards this illusion of a greater good. Save me lots of hours I can spend in a more worthwhile fashion. Go ahead, block my IP range, and best do so for a long time. A future me thanks you immeasurably. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Given "many hundreds of weeks of dozens of hours [spent on Wikipedia editing]" is actually accurate (I joined in 2003, kept it steady at one article a day for eight years, then went ballistic; overall live edit rate of over 85%, read: less than two in 13 edits were opposed (Yes, I kept logs. I'm that kind of person.)), I've now added the edit buttons in all languages I'm fluent in at all my locations / IP ranges to UBlock_Origin; tldr: You can probably spare yourselves the effort to figure out what exactly to block for how long precisely. I sincerely doubt I'll be around here again. Straw to break the camel's back. It's time for a new chapter. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Replied on the IP's talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is ongoing and needs action. Please. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Do act, but act blindly. Make especially sure not to check the actual content of my edits, in comparison to the state two days ago, else you might find I actually improved the situation; except I had to do it over and over again. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Update Still zero response on the talk page by the IP[79] and another 4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James and Jytdog: I've put this under full protection to give a possible rangeblock discussion time to conclude. This is without prejudice - I'm merely noting the back and forth as evidence of a dispute; I have not reviewed diffs in detail (no time, sry). Full prot should be removed when a decision has been made over blocking/rangeblocking. Samsara 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Semi protection would have been sufficient. But sure that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Dispute -> full protection, per policy. Regards, Samsara 14:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"zero response on the talk page" is bullshit if you take a look at my summary lines: I actually kept your substantially wrong and otherwise bad summary in the heading until there was no more point to it whatsoever. Same goes for the interactions, that section was fully reworked, not simply removed. In vast contrast, you didn't provide any sensible summary line on your last revert whatsoever. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
And sure, /you/ say "semi protection would have been sufficient" so you can keep up your bad work. Got to be kidding me. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Naturally, I kindly request the most recent vandalistic reversion by Doc_James, done just before the page was protected, to be undone, and thereby the last good version to be restored. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm mostly here just to watch some drama, but I would like draw attention to the incivility of some of 92.194.54.218's edit summaries. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Fully protected three days by User:Samsara. It's unclear why there is such a big fight over something that seems resolvable. The IP is trying to prove that IPs should be respected but by methods that are unlikely to work: being very aggressive, using lots of personal attacks, making charges of 'vandalism', and suggesting that the other party should be banned. "Bugger off, I get it. Registered idiots can jam whatever sensible edits, don't need to explain their reverts, don't need to comment their vandalism, as IPs are 2nd class editors. Same old, same old." [80]. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Their main effort appears to be to try to remove the side effects from the lead. We generally put both the medical uses and the side effects in the lead per WP:LEAD (and this is done if 100s of medication articles). This was explained to them and they persisted without any effort to develop consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:198.161.86.10 (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page: Slavery in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]18:10, 20 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (Undid revision 806242694 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) take it to talk or leave it alone) (undo)
  2. [diff]17:41, 20 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (Undid revision 806238720 by 198.161.86.10 (talk) Read the lede. We are clearly discussing the territory that now forms Canada, not slavery in Canada after Confederation.) (undo)
  3. [diff]23:21, 17 October 2017‎ Meters (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,670 bytes) (-359)‎ . . (undo, no it had nothing to do with what the region was called at the time) (undo)
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_Canada&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

The fact of the matter is Meters has a long history of bullying and edit warring with multiple users, including using alt accounts. Further my edit to the page was only to add the fact Canada didn't exist until July 1, 1867, I didn't alter/add/delete anything else. This is important because it adds clarification to a narrative clearly meant to be divisive and negative. For instance it was stated slavery in Canada is not talked about but the way it's worded is clearly meant to invoke an air of conspiracy and/or denial. By pointing out Canada was formed on July 1, 1867 it clarifies why it's not talked about - Canada as a country existed after slavery was officially abolished. If one wishes to discuss the history of Canada then one must include important dates. To state slavery existed in the country of Canada, rather than the colonies which would later form Canada, then one must take into consideration the date Canada was formed. While it may be inconvenient for political purposes it doesn't change historical fact. If this really was a discussion on slavery in the territory that would become Canada then why wasn't it written as such? Meters himself doesn't dispute what I've written, as shown in the above examples, yet he claims it's irrelevant. Is it? Claiming a country actively participated in slavery when it didn't even exist seems a highly relevant detail doesn't it? That logic states when Ukraine broke from the old USSR any practices that happened before and after that date of separation doesn't matter when in fact it does. My intention wasn't to cause any vandalism, as Meyers' is, it's merely to add information and clarification that was neglected and is much needed for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.86.10 (talkcontribs) 19:14, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

See the previous report. Can someone deal with this tit-for-tat report? The IP has accused me of "bullying and harrassment" in the original header, and socking and vandalism in the above comment. He or she didn't inform me of this report, got my name wrong in the original posting, didn't give me an edit warring warning (the supposed link to the warning is nothing but the history of the page), didn't respond to my comment about the edit content on his or her talk page, ignored the pointers to WP:BRD and WP:EW on the user's talk page, and didn't respond to my opening of the issue on the article's talk page. I left his final revert in place and opened the previous edit warring report. The user has now been blocked for edit warring and an unblock request has been denied. The edit in question was undone by an uninvolved editor (User:Ponyo). Meters (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The IP kept restoring unsourced commentary to the article. Any sentence that starts off with "It needs to be told however" does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to discuss the validity of the second part of the edit on the article's talk page if anyone wants to support the claim that the reason slavery was not mentioned in the three acts of the 1700s was because Canada didn't exist until 1867. Meters (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:94.246.150.68 reported by User:Atsme (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]


I WISH TO WITHDRAW THIS 3RR, PLEASE? I believe the IP has good intentions, but may simply be unaware of protocol, and if I can help familiarize them, I would prefer to do that instead. Thank you - Atsme📞📧 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Tried to explain and received the following response which appears that user doesn't understand vandalism or that we use TP to discuss.

FYI - this page was in the WP:NPR queue because it was initially a redirect. IP's reverts deleted categories, rearranged order of paragraphs and introduced some minor copy edit errors. Atsme📞📧 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It was accidental vandalisms by the reverters. The categories removed were for article Merlin, which I replaced them with categories for, you know, the poem Merlin, which is a completely different thing (a work and not a character). (Do I even have to explain the things that should be just obvious?) Btw I finished with my "some minor copy edit errors", which is a funny way to say "expanding the article more than twice in size and adding 11 references to replace the original 1 reference". And also to expalin more things: the original article was just a copy-pasted portion of the article about the character Merlin (from Merlin#Later versions of the legend - [81]), and about third of it was also about the continuation Prose Merlin and not the original poem or its prose version. It would be really nice if the reverters just watched more closely what they revert. Or asked if in doubt. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And for the "4th" - the removed tag "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.", as I said in my edit (it wasn't a revert): it was not "references" in the external links (it's links to the English prose text, which I added too). Also then I added 7 more actual references (as inline citations aka "minor copy edit errors" apparently) soon later, and before this report. Seriously please just watch what you revert, and also what you report. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and also one more still thing still: I actually requested this article to be created in first place: [82] --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: WIthdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:M.Billoo2000 reported by User:TheGreatWikiLord (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Multan Sultans in 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) "repeated info as of now, and too early to create a new page. already tried to discuss."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
  2. 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for Comment on his behavior */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC) ""
Comments:

Please also see Multan Sultans, 2018 Pakistan Super League, and 2018 Pakistan Super League players draft, 2018_Pakistan_Super_League#Venues, and Peshawar_Zalmi_in_2018. Constant trolling and edit useless criticizing such as User_talk:TheGreatWikiLord#Multan_.27Sultans.27.3F.

Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, but there is disagreement as to when articles ought to be created on new teams. This kind of thing should be worked out by consensus. The thread at User talk:M.Billoo2000#Request for Comment on his behavior is an example of how *not* to do it. See WP:DR for other options.