Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 19 January 2017

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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.

User:Catrin00 reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Catrin00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 04:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760302598 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"
4. 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760246284 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Crossed 3RR and refusing to discuss on the talk page. Has been already warned by another editor. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that the user is not aware that they have a talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC reported by User:Cobblet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Counties of Uganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC (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:

Edit-warring at Counties of Uganda and Maracha District by user also using IPs 2605:6000:EF52:B200:F02D:8152:909C:8A77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.54.86.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 3RR breached on the former page without responding to my concerns and edit summaries make it clear user is reverting out of spite. Same user has also reverted a copyedit I made to Jessica Horn. Requesting revert and semi-protection of Counties of Uganda and Maracha District. Suspect these accounts are User:AfricaTanz's: note overlap of editing interests between these IPs and the blocked 70.124.133.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked the /64 range for two weeks. If you see any other IPs (v6 or v4) taking up the same battle please let me know on my user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:178.134.227.183 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Stale)

Page: Wolverine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.134.227.183 (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:
Pretty straightforward case, with 5 essentially identical edits over two days, the final one following a 3RR warning, a user talk page plea, and an active Talk page discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Three registered editors agreed that the IP's removal of the material was unwarranted, and made slight changes to the article to reflect the IP's stated concerns. The IP did not participate in the discussion beyond an initial posting. IP has not again removed the material at issue, but, he has gone 24 hours between edits previously, so this period of inaction may not indicate his acquiescence. I suggest waiting another 4-5 hours today, and closing out this report if he does not once again remove the material - if thereafter he makes the same edit then I can return here to file another report. JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. User hasn't reverted again in a couple days - and has tried to engage on the talkpage since stopping. I would encourage both sides to discuss the changes before reverting. SQL 00:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:200.84.139.254 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi)

Page

Guerra de ídolos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

200.84.139.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "Lo sé, hablo español y inglés, pero te hablo en español, para ver si me entiendes, porqué parece que no lo haces, te lo pido, investiga para que veas que es cierto."
2. 00:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "Informarte, cuando lo hagas verás que tengo razón, editas sin saber, quien eres? El director de la producción, no lo creo, jaja! Y te hablo en español haber si entiendes."
3. 23:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Por favor, informense antes de editar la pagina sin saber Sheryl"
4. 23:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 19:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Sheryl es la protagonista juvenil."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I do not know if it's AlexMiller2, but the IP really speaks in Spanish just like Alex did, and still defending the same point as Alex did, I've asked for help here and here, but I really do not know why they do not help me, I really do not know this at all. Philip J Fry • (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected three months. Previous report was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334#User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Page protected) which led to a period of full protection. If people have the energy to keep filing 3RR reports you would think they would consider using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Nanaonly reported by User:TerryAlex (Result: No action)

Page

The K2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nanaonly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User Nanaonly keeps on adding back the awards section in this article. This television drama was not being nominated as the representative work for any of these awards. In fact, based on its official website and the award ceremony itself, it seems these awards were being given out to their recipients on a general basis. I request for a discussion on the article's talk page, through edit summaries, and the user's talk page, but without any responses. Thank you. TerryAlex (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nanaonly has responded to me through email and I have responded to it on the article's talk page. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:Nanaonly was convinced that an award won by Im Yoon-ah should be credited to her performance on The K2 program, but others disagreed. The other editors believe that the source was misinterpreted. Now, per a discussion at Talk:The K2#Awards, it appears that this is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Maxim.ascanio reported by User:XXN (Result: Blocked)

Page: Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxim.ascanio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently created SPA Maxim.ascanio removes continuously referenced content (entire section) from the article Vladimir Plahotniuc. Has violated 3RR indirectly. See last 10-15 entries in the page history. --XXN, 11:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC) * Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31h I've looked at this, and blocked the user. @XXN: - next time, please use the form. SQL 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tahc reported by User:Zfish118 (Result: Both Warned)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tahc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Original Edit, adding redundant disclaimers

1. First revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history.
2. Second revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history and reintroducing inappropriate disclaimers.

1. Second Edit (Jan 16), relatively productive, specifying what content is disputed
2. Third revert (Jan 17), needlessly reverting the addition of a source
3. Forth revert (Jan 17), reverting my restoration of the source.

I would also reference the talkpage discussion, making numerous vague accusations of adding "theology" to the infobox, accusation of refusing to discuss issues that are not clearly stated, etc.

Comments:
This began because I because I reverted an edit that introduced a change in wikilink was that I did not think was particularly helpful to an infobox that has been heavily discussed in the past to reach its current form. Tahc restored his and slightly modified his edit, which was initially going to leave. I subsequently noticed inappropriate disclaimers added to the infobox, which is why I reverted the edit. I was then accused of "adding theology" and not discussing the issue, which I am not at all clear on. Since then, Tahc has engaged in seemingly gratuitous reversions of additional sources, as noted above. This editing behavior is disruptive to the continued maintenance of the article. --Zfish118 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that "making accusation not clearly stated" is another way of saying "tried very much to begin a discussion" but I was ignored repeataly. tahc 18:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: This is a bit stale, but I'm leaving a warning for both parties. Each of you has some justification for your view, but if you revert again before holding a proper talk page discussion blocks are possible. Generally Misplaced Pages takes an 'outside view' of people or institutions. We want to know what unaffiliated sources have written about the thing that is the subject of the article. The subject's own view of what happened is secondary, and it's arguable that the Church's belief that it was founded in Jerusalem in the first century may not be credible enough for use in the infobox. We have had many disputes about religion and it's unlikely that admins will have much tolerance for continued warring on this article. If you consider the issue important, open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1 week)

Page

Guerra de ídolos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AlexMiller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC) to 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 15:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user continues with its destructive editions even though it was already blocked in the past, and generates editions wars through IPS. Philip J Fry • (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Has clearly learned nothing from their block a few days ago. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  Just noticed the sockpuppetry, blocked both account and IP for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:47.17.27.96 (Result: None)

Page: Economy of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpidErxD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• All Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report. see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but he User:47.17.27.96 don't revert those. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook and updated summary. I will revert all my edits. promise me that you will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report yourself?. User:King of Hearts please look into this issue. Also he use User:47.17.27.96 instead of his real username i.e User:SSZ for reporting me. Please ask him to use his real username for reporting and editing articles instead of using ip address. SpidErxD (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No true. SpiderXd has been edit warring for a week already. See his edit history as proof. Also please tell this troll that he must wait until consensus is reached about content on talk page of the article before reverting the long standing stable version. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PassenzaT reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)

Page

Aaliyah discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PassenzaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "please stop reverting with no reason. There no connection to the note section. Theres no reference to 2,619,829 copies sold on 'Aaliyah'. Just check others discographies (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Discographies/style)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) to 21:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "add Soundscan and BMG Clubs sales again, with a reliable source. Makes the article more detailed, please stop reverting with no reason"
   2. 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Aaliyah discography edition war */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Aaliyah album sales */ new section"

Comments:

Editor was previously blocked for similar issues. He/she has continued in the same vein. Case of WP:NOTHERE. Karst (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what I did wasn't wrong. I only add the sales from BMG club, with a reliable source. I asked several administrators for help. And theres no reason for this user insulting me, it's just wrong to say these words in Misplaced Pages. And now I can be blocked? There's just not fair. I understood the fact that I have to discuss on talk page, but how can I discuss with a user that revert everything I do and now is insulting me? You can check my edits by yourself, I put reliable sources in everything I did, but that's just wrong to a user act like he or she owns Aaliyah's articles and say "f*cking idi*t" to me. Please check everything and reconsider, because I'm not that wrong. Insulting a user is worst than editing with references. And yes, I'm here to make Misplaced Pages better, I respect any users and I use reliable sources. I understood the warning, but blocking me for what? For editing? For being insulted? I can't do a editing war alone. With I should be blocked, Mulaj should too. I'm not editing Aaliyah Discography anymore, but it's not fair to be blocked and I can not discuss with a user that don't have some respect. What I did just made the page more explanatory. PassenzaT (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not about the content that you added, but about your behaviour in these articles. After your block you continue to insert this material without discussing it, even after you were reverted. Please look at WP:BRD. You should have started a section on the Talk page on the Aaliyah discography after you had been reverted. Instead you reverted and insisted you were right. If you are challenged on the sources that you have added (as you were on the Brandy issue that led to your previous block under 3RR), discuss them to reach consensus. Your refusal to do so is clearly frustrating to other editors. Karst (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you check you'll see that after being warned I stopped reverting on Brandy's page and used the talk page. That problem is finished. The point is that I can not discuss with the user Mulaj, there's no excuse to insulting another user. If you check I edited the Aaliyah Album article. He/She reverted saying that I didn't use reliable sources. I talked to him, proved that I used reliable sources. Another user reverted my edit, claiming that's no reason to put the sales status by the end of 2001. I accepted and did not edit the album article anymore. I only reverted the discography article because I did nothing wrong, I just add BMG sales like Janet, Madonna, Michael Jackson page. But it's impossible to talk with this user. I'm not editing Aaliyah's article anymore, after your warning. There's no need to block me. But insulting another user is a good reason to be warned at least. If you check I did some good and important edits on Aaliyah articles, all with references and making them more explanatory, like the One In A Million album. You can check by yourself. This user Mulaj has a problem with everyone that has big edits on Aaliyahs articles. Again, all my editions on Aaliyahs Discography has reliable sources, I'm defending myself from being insulted because it's not fair. I asked your help. You warned me and after your warning I stopped editing. Please be impartial. PassenzaT (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And the 3 consecutives edits I did between 21:23 and 21:34 where when I noticed that one of the links where dead and I searched another source. What's wrong on that? PassenzaT (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You added the material on the 14th to the Aaliyah discography page and you were reverted. Instead of starting a discussion under WP:BRD you engaged in an edit war. That is why we are here. Karst (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. User was previously blocked for edit warring in December. I have no idea which of you is more likely to be right about the numbers, but you need to wait for an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mauro Lanari reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Room 237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mauro Lanari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• warned by myself
• warned by an admin a few hours later

Reminded user to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

User reminded to raise the content dispute on the talkpage, but has not done so. Has reverted two different editors four times in approx. 18 hours, with no discussion fortcoming. Reminded not to edit-war twice (once by me, once by an admin), and then continued to revert the changes afterwards. Lugnuts 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
Page: Room 237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff (his 3rd RR. By the way, why no one has also notified to him the warning?)
4. diff
5. diff

Users reminded to raise the content dispute on my talkpage, but have not done so: diff

Request for explanations for their revert against WP policy in each of my edit summaries, while I have always provided further reasons never considered

My edit in which I took into account the information found at Template: Allmovie title (example no. 4), one of the Category:Film external link templates: diff

1. Lugnuts reverted "per the MOS", id est?
2. Favre1fan93 reverted for his own opinions without saying on which WP guidelines they were based
3. Erik reverted "per WP:ELMAYBE"

All these answers are so vague as to not even be arguments, and go against everything written in the places that I have indicated to them and here above. I have no further intention to continue to edit that article, but at least I'd like to know what would be the right rule to follow between the {{Allmovie}} template and the external links. Thank you. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You were asked to discuss your change on the article's talkpage, and then continued to revert after that was posted on your talkpage. Lugnuts 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mauro Lanari, I said WP:ELMAYBE #1. Please click on that and look at #1 at that link. That is what the other editors were referring to. It is not an opinion but a clear exclusion. We are already working to get the "review" tab removed from the external link template as inappropriate. Its existence does not mean it was valid, as the conflict with policy is obvious. It will be removed. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, on this you're right: you wrote "article's talkpage", while I've read and understood "my talkpage". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The fact remains that you have been the first to make 3 reverts but no one has notified also to you the warning.

Erik, in the past (I can't find where and when) I had already asked why the AMG templates enjoy this preferential treatment, and it was explained to me that, as Metacritic and Rotten, their vote is an average rating. Now you say it's not true. Mystery. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mauro Lanari, The AllMovie link only shows one professional rating. We would not include an EL to share user ratings (which we largely exclude from articles anyway). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have two distinct roles in film articles. First, they are included as references to report the aggregate scores. Secondly, they are included as external links because they list multiple reviews in one spot (which is why individual reviews as ELs are unnecessary). MOS:FILM#External links says, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Misplaced Pages article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews." The fact that they're the same URL is happenstance. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Erik, I managed to find where I had already raised the issue, almost identical to yours, and where I had received a reply, almost opposed to yours: here. Then don't blame the editors who go crazy to follow the elusive consistency of WP policies and guidelines. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mauro Lanari, I do not find that to be the opposite. What FleetCommand said is an argument for the external link template's general existence, so they did not really answer your question. You can use the AllMovie EL on its own, but the emphasis on linking to the review is unnecessary. I actually do not think that AllMovie should be an EL at all (I've nominated it for deletion a couple of times), but since there was no consensus in either case to exclude the EL template in its entirety, I've accepted its general use. You could probably restore the Room 237 AllMovie EL without the "review" tab and just keep it general. If for some reason, the review at AllMovie is worthwhile, it should be added directly to the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Erik, one of two things: either "AllMovie isn't one review only. It aggregates film metadata and user rating too", or "only shows one professional rating". However, I can also accept to not being able to understand. Furthermore I think this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mauro, the reason I didn't warn Lugnuts for edit warring was because he stopped reverting and went to WT:FILM to discuss the matter. That some random editor once said AllMovie is alright to use in the external links doesn't mean that you can edit war to add it against consensus in an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. As I wrote in the edit summary here, consensus can't go against what one tries to understand of the WP policy. First you try to find consensus to change the policy and then you may apply the change, not the reverse. I used to think that even mass edits against a not yet modified WP policy were vandalism. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Soundofmusicals reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: )

Page

Auld Lang Syne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Soundofmusicals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 760736301 by Soundofmusicals: You are becoming tiresome - go to talk if you think you have a case for this silly re-arrngement and make it there. (TW)"
2. 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 760661916 by Soundofmusicals: Not so - "Recordings" no longer contains a list of recordings, but it is far from "nul" - the note as to why it contains no list is important. YOU justify the change,on talk, if the change improves the..."
3. 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 758222161 by Soundofmusicals (talk): Well mesat edit - but original order makes better sense really. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ 3RR violation on Auld Lang Syne as well as flagrant flouting of the MOS policy on capitalization"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* A section does not necessarily need to contain a list. */ if there's no content then it is null, and the rationale is not being removed only the null subsection heading, also vio of 3RR and MOS per capitalization norms in headings"

Comments:

This editor seems simply here to argue and have their way, ignoring subtext and just reverting. Before 3RRing (3 reverts in 13 hours on ALS article) without any substantive reason given, I see an edit history with other uncivil/non-Good Faith edit summaries like the ones he/she gave me in the ALS article, to wit parting shot - I'm fed up with this nonsense, to be honest... and his/her comment to me "you are becoming tiresome" as a personal attack in addition to lack of good faith and being rather uncivil. JesseRafe (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also editor seems to think I added a "list" (???) to the article, which I empirically did not, otherwise their attempt at resolving at Talk (after the 3RR vio) makes zero sense.JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This complaint maybe now needs to be moved to the noticeboard for personal attacks if possible? User now calling my edits stupid (admittedly on a scale of "less stupid than most" on their talk page). User is also completely ignoring the substance of my conversation, to wit: Ownership of the article/willingness to collaborate, the 3RR rule, and the capitalization issue -- none were addressed at all. Editor seems to think all these issues are "stupid" and just "things they have to deal with". JesseRafe (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

With all respect - complainant is in fact doing what he is complaining of. It takes 2 to edit war and violate 3RR - he is actually doing it, while I am not (yet). My point, that he has goaded me into putting on the talk page has (as I type) not been answered - it strikes me as relevant, if not conclusive. An editor suggesting a change that is not immediately accepted needs to go to talk to discuss why the change is necesary (or even marginally desirable) - not howl "hard done by". All else confusion. I will not copy the abuse I have copped on my own talk page here - but if anyone doesn't believe me go have a look! I called his abuse of me "stupid" which they are - if I inadvertently called HIM stupid then this was inappropriate, and I apologise. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I should even respond to all of the above. Again, Soundofmusicals ignored the actual substance, and while did not make any new personal attacks, clearly misrepresented the facts: 1. I reverted two times, he/she reverted three times. That is not subjective no matter how much Soundofmusicals wants to say it is the other way. 2. I had already responded on the article's talk page before filing this report, proof of which is my response on the Talk page is linked in this report -- Soundofmusicals is clearly trying to discredit me in the hopes that someone not look at time stamps or into the matter and just read these comments as "testimony". After looking at Talk:Auld Lang Syne it definitely seems incontrovertible that User Soundofmusicals is acting in an "ownership" role as sole and final editor over that page, and per IP below, I am not at all surprised others have run into them and their abrasive style. Also note the jingoism and nationalism expressed on that Talk page against Americans. JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Same experience here at Baha'i talk (FA? section)47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

OK Here is the transcript from my talk page:

January 2017

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Auld Lang Syne. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note here that you have expressly violated 3RR on the article, while also being intentionally disruptive and adding nothing of content or value to the encyclopedia but serving your own self interests in a harassing and uncivil manner, in such edit summaries as "No, you do it!" which is not constructive. You've also wantonly ignored the fact that the version upon which you insist has inaccurate pet the MOS use of capitalization, and yet, you chose to restore a version that has this irregular capitalization than a prior version with the good one. All because you seem to think you "own" the article and you're word is infallible, despite the fact that you cannot articulate your position an iota. JesseRafe (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. I have now started a talk thread on the subject concerned for what it is worth (although this is actually the responsibility of the person suggesting a change rather than the reverse) - answer there if you are that interested. All the edit concerned does is rearrange existing text in a way that makes it more obscure (specifically - muddling the very point of having headings at all). No conceivable reason why this sort of this needs to be "accepted", and nothing whatever to do with "owning" an article. This article happens to be on my watchlist (I forget how it got there) - it is subject to all manner of stupidity (mostly very much worse than your edit - which was, at least initially, well meant, I must admit). It is a VERY important article in terms of the number of people who consult it, and someone (just lately, mostly me) has to look after it. Really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE:

The user in his edit summary seems to claim the section is "nul" because a list formerly part of it was deleted. It is NOT nul as it still contains an important note, explaining why we DON'T have a list of recordings (of Auld Lang Syne) - basically, because there are just to many of them to list! This is moved by the edit made by my "learned friend" from its own little sub-section, where it makes sense, at least, to the main section - to which it has less less relevance, and where it is confusing. To say this is "less silly" is my attempt to be sane and concilliatory by specifically conceding that the original edit was well intentioned and not to be compared with vandalism or "real" silliness - this does not in itself mean that it MUST be accepted however. The complainant has made no attempt to address the question at issue - in spite of it being his/her responsibility to do so, and the instigator of a change that has been challenged. I could say (but I won't) that s --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayout reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: )

Page

Blackout (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Grayout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760746714 by Kellymoat (talk)"
2. 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760732694 by Kellymoat (talk) read the AllMusic review it says robo-R&B beforehand you get trigger happy"
3. 19:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760677044 by Kellymoat (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been adding an unsourced music genre --- please note, he is then linking that genre to a page he created that redirects to another genre. Kellymoat (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Explain how you aren't also edit warring? Even if you believe you are correct, you should be discussing, not repeatedly reverting the other editor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that. All I can say is - I sent him a warning. I sent a 3rr warning. I tried the edit summary. And now I am here taking it to a higher power. I may be just as guilty when it comes to 3rr, but I have at least given him ample opportunity. Kellymoat (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring