| Revision as of 09:02, 14 April 2015 editSPACKlick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,193 edits →Violation of the 3RR: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:07, 14 April 2015 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: ): rNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ::: As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. ] (]) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | ::: As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. ] (]) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Please stop claiming I'm . I provided evidence you deleted text. You think deleting all that text was appropriate? ] (]) 09:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:07, 14 April 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes page. |
|
Who can inform editors?
@Bishonen: Does it have to be an admin who places the notification on user's talk pages? There's at least one editor who's editing relevant pages but hasn't been informed. SPACKlick (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Probably more than one. Please see the instructions here: "Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case". Log here. Bishonen | talk 07:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC).
- Any editor can make a notification, provided he follows the procedure specified at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The difference between ArbCom DS and community DS is that GS have different templates and logging procedures, which are specified on this page. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Violation of the 3RR
User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: )
- Page
- Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SPACKlick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655461925&oldid=655457035 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656291797&oldid=656291338 Revert one by SPACKlick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656298163&oldid=656298112 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656303862&oldid=656303264 Revert two by SPACKlick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656305106&oldid=656303862 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656306218&oldid=656305106 Revert three by SPACKlick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311733&oldid=656311581 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311834&oldid=656311733 Revert four by SPACKlick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656362329&oldid=656345708 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=656362329 Revert five by SPACKlick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=656384228 My edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656384442&oldid=656384228 Revert six. This was the previous warning. User:Mr. Stradivarius, where should this be reported since the page is under DS? QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I hold my hands up to this one, although I dispute that 1 is a revert. Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page? SPACKlick (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- You deleted three sentences that were not duplication. I was trying to discuss things with you then this happened. You previously claimed you made only two reverts. More text was deleted. Without evidence you are claiming I am disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am claiming you're disruptive Quack, and have done for a long time and I don't provide evidence because everyone involved here knows my reasons for thinking so. I don't claim that it's malice it seems much more like a competence issue. You add content from a wide variety of sources with no editorial consideration making the page unreadable. The page reads like a history of science on e-cigs rather than a list of things know about e-cigs. You refuse or are incapable of discussing content on the talk pages instead claiming no objection is specific enough or that a source is sufficient justification for inclusion. It took hours and dozens of posts last night for you to discuss what to insert and where for one sentence you wanted in the article, during which you conflated two differing discussions of two seperate issues. The insertion itself was either Pointy or tendentious, inserting information about advertisers use of the word circumvent in a section about user motivation where the use of circumvent had been removed and raised for discussion as potential NPOV issue. You are disruptive and yesterday I thought I could muster the energy to power through and deal with you but I've realised I have no strategy for dealing with your kind of disruption, hence the request for advice.
- You deleted three sentences that were not duplication. I was trying to discuss things with you then this happened. You previously claimed you made only two reverts. More text was deleted. Without evidence you are claiming I am disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop claiming I'm disruptive. I provided evidence you deleted text. You think deleting all that text was appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)