Revision as of 16:33, 4 April 2017 editDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,654 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:40, 4 April 2017 edit undoOnly in death (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,895 edits →User:Only in death reported by User:DrKay (Result: )Next edit → | ||
Line 355: | Line 355: | ||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | <u>Comments:</u> <br /> | ||
*DrKay has repeatedly stated (despite being informed otherwise) that an RFC which the closer *specifically* stated only applied to the template Infobox Person, should apply to other infoboxs. This is an untruth. He used it as his rationale for removing the parameter from Infobox Royalty and edit-warring with me to keep it out. When confronted with his mistaken rationale, he decided to move the goalposts, as well as deliberately reverting in order to push it to 3rr, rather than accepting he was incorrect. So if you think this warrents blocking, given I was editing in good faith and DrKay was reverting due to his lack of knowledge of the issue in question, any sanction should apply to both parties. For what its worth, I pledge not to revert further without discussion elsewhere. ] (]) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:40, 4 April 2017
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
- Additional notes
- When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
- The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
- Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
- Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
- Definition of edit warring
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
Click here to create a new report
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
User:Shimlaites reported by User:TKSS (Result: Protected)
- Page
- Dutt (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Shimlaites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773411360 by TKSS (talk) Use talk page, unexplained removal."
- 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773087330 by TKSS (talk) Why?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 06:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Dutt (film). (TW)"
- 06:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "/* April 2017 */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User:TKSS has been reverting my edits on Dutt (film) without any explanation and have already done so twice in less than 24 hrs. No effort by the user to engage on the talk page, instead he/she left a rather amusing, "you are blocked" message on my talk page with the apparent intention to show aggression. Please see for yourself. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Shimlaites https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shimlaites&oldid=773411692. Please see notice carefully he/she editor i have only said that you will be blocked if you revert my edits. "I haven't said that you are blocked". Please look and think before you write. BTW i am reverting your edits because it doesn't look good in these articles. It is an english encyclopedia there is no need of mentioning anything in hindi language. if you really want to mention it then please make an article of this film on hindi wikipedia. BTW most good quality film articles on this site doesn't mention anything in hindi or other regional language . TKSS (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @User:TKSS And who are you to decide what looks good in an article? Name in the native script is a norm and is available on all the pages, it seems you only know one article on Misplaced Pages and are not following other film pages, they all have the native script, now stop reverting, which is close to vandalism. Shimlaites (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"...with the apparent intention to show aggression"
- TKSS did the same thing you did here, Shimlaites. Your complaint is disingenuous. Both of you should have tried actual talking instead of slapping templates on each other. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Shimlaites https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shimlaites&oldid=773411692. Please see notice carefully he/she editor i have only said that you will be blocked if you revert my edits. "I haven't said that you are blocked". Please look and think before you write. BTW i am reverting your edits because it doesn't look good in these articles. It is an english encyclopedia there is no need of mentioning anything in hindi language. if you really want to mention it then please make an article of this film on hindi wikipedia. BTW most good quality film articles on this site doesn't mention anything in hindi or other regional language . TKSS (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note - I'm going to abstain from administrating here, but there is problematic behavior going on between both of these users. Shimlaites should surely beware the WP:BOOMERANG here. There's no indication that Shimlaites attempted to discuss this. Rather, *I* opened a discussion at Talk:Dutt (film) to get these two people to start discussing. Shimlaites then reverted the article again, and subsequently requested page protection. Very questionable chain of events. Shimlaites' inability to let the status quo remain is upsetting. And while both editors should have opened a discussion, Shimlaites should have done this the first time he was reverted. Note also that the crux of this ludicrous timesuck is about whether Hindi script belongs in a film article's infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- The reverting was started by User:TKSS(here), not me, this is something that should be clarified. I was the one who first mentioned about discussion on the talk page in my edits summary, which I am sure is meant to be read by other users. In his edit summaries, User:TKSS only talked about how he/she felt the article should be, if there is a problem of behavior here, I don't see how I am to be blamed but then its a case of POV, everyone has one. Shimlaites (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- What I was saying (without going into all the detail) is that per WP:BRD, when you are reverted, the onus is yours to open discussion. However, in your defense, there were three unexplained edits by TKSS here, here and here. So your frustration is understandable. Since I didn't have as full an understanding of the dispute when I wrote the above comment, I have striken out irrelevant portions. I think this AN3 case should be closed after I warn TKSS about the problematic silent reversions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days by User:Lectonar. If there is an actual consensus regarding use of Hindi text, you will be more persuasive if you can link to where this matter was discussed previously. Or you could ask any long-time editor who is familiar with articles about the Indian cinema. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- What I was saying (without going into all the detail) is that per WP:BRD, when you are reverted, the onus is yours to open discussion. However, in your defense, there were three unexplained edits by TKSS here, here and here. So your frustration is understandable. Since I didn't have as full an understanding of the dispute when I wrote the above comment, I have striken out irrelevant portions. I think this AN3 case should be closed after I warn TKSS about the problematic silent reversions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
User:5.172.255.124 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Block, Semi)
- Page
- Warsaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 5.172.255.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Comments:
Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours by User:Ymblanter. Page semiprotected by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
User:5.172.255.118 reported by User:Oliszydlowski (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Largest capital cities of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 5.172.255.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Comments:
Persistent vandalism and personal attacks. Severe edit war and vile crude language. Already applied for the page protection. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected one month. User:Hut 8.5 has deleted the bad edit summary per the request at WP:RFPP. The same user has been warring at Warsaw with a variety of IPs. If you see further problems a /24 rangeblock should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
User:4TheWynne reported by User:113.210.60.212 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
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:
- 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. If this is about Cate Blanchett, don't bother. 4TheWynne is not close to WP:3RR and is upholding WP:BLP NeilN 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
User:NokSuk reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
- Page
- Russian Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- NokSuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "deos wiki concensus overwrite russian goverments classification of their own military?"
- 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "the russian goverment decides what's part of their military services not wiki users. they say the NG and BS are all military, then that's where we have to inclide them"
- 19:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "there are multiple sources confirming this, including the one that says the russian armed forces is at 93% manpower level. but i'm assuming mr englishman who'd rather use outdated swedish sources wouldn't know how to read russian."
- 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "if you are refering to the National guard. they are soldeirs. they don't do police work"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Russian Armed Forces."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit-warring to get material that isn't fully supported by the source into the article, in spite of having been told to discuss the edit instead. - Tom | Thomas.W 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours By Mifter NeilN 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Lennytran reported by User:Nmphuong91 (Result: Warned)
Page: Bao Dai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lennytran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=B%E1%BA%A3o_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i&diff=773606851&oldid=773571235
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bảo_Đại#Removal_of_remarks_section
Comments:
- Warned. Please let me know if there's any further edit warring. El_C 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- The edit war still continue despite the warning. Nmphuong91 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:uses different ip's reported by Wega14 (Result: No violation)
Page: Near-death experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: user uses different ip's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User (ip) is deleting content, which has source, saying something: youtube is not allowed, but there is not youtube-source given. User include too old literature in further reading. Wega14 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- No violation For one thing, there's clearly no violation of 3RR. For another thing, the IP's largely removing junk in-popular-culture content; such content is virtually always worthy of excision. And thirdly, don't invent rules prohibiting literature beyond a certain (unspecified) date. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- junk in-popular-culture?: these have all own articles in Misplaced Pages. Your comment is POV.Wega14 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Antihypocritic reported by User:Stickee (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Gun laws in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Antihypocritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Yes, please stop and respectully consider a NPOV. SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT. ABS is a RS.Undid revision 773607740 by Stickee (talk)"
- 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "SYNTH is not numerical summarization, See WP:SYNTHNOT. ABS is a RS. Undid revision 773601437 by CamV8 (talk)"
- 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Inserted under heading "Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia". It is not NPOV to ignore general rates of homicide or homicide by other weapons when evaluating gun control measures. */"
- 11:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC) "This is CALC not OR. Undid revision 772992315 by Felsic2 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gun laws in Australia. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "/* ABS statistics */ re"
- Comments:
Warring against 3 different editors. Fourth revert is just outside the 24 hour window. Stickee (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours El_C 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Elispall reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Warned)
Page: Lovely Professional University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elispall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User continues to insert poorly sourced promotional material into Lovely Professional University, despite being warned not to.
- Warned In order to violate 3RR you need four reverts in the course of 24 hours. Will warn user about edit warring and urge them to use the talk page. El_C 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:179.192.189.55 reported by User:The1337gamer (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Gwent: The Witcher Card Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 179.192.189.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- 19:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- 18:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Microsoft windows is just a software o$; combined with the hardware it is called a Computer. Stop re-editting missinformation to the public!"
- 16:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gwent: The Witcher Card Game. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
179.192.189.55 (talk · contribs) has reverted 3 different editors who all disagree with their change they made. The change all goes against standard convention used on Misplaced Pages articles. 179.192.189.55 (talk · contribs) made a fourth and fifth revert after final warning. The1337gamer (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Dailycare reported by User:Debresser (Result: Users warned 31 hours)
I actually think that the truth is precisely the other way around. The last stable version was the one before Dailycare started edit warring. He is therefore reported for edit warring as well, his edits being:
As you can see, 1. Dailycare's first edit changed the consensus version. His first edit predates mine. QED. 2. He made no less than 5 reverts, and that despite numerous warnings: , . Please notice that in my first warning I already explained to him that he is changing a consensus version. In addition there is a discussion at Talk:Jewish_diaspora#re._Debresser (rather an awkward header, which anybody please feel free to change to something more indicative of the issue), in which I also right away explained the issue. Also please note that Dailycare's last revert was made after the start of that discussion and in spite of it.
WP:ARBPIA has nothing to do with this article or the specific edit in case. See and , consider the lack of a WP:ARBPIA warning on the talkpage of that article, and apply common sense.
In short, all there is here is a slow-burning edit war, without any violations of WP:3RR or WP:ARBPIA, instigated by Dailycare and his ignoring repeated warnings "Do not edit war even if you think you are right". Regarding sanctions, I think that reminding Dailycare of the error of his ways should be enough, and do not see reason for a block.
Debresser (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: If you're gonna add a report, please fill out all the required fields. El_C 20:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think all the necessary fields are here: diffs of edit warring, talkpage link, diffs of warnings. In any case, I opened this as a section of the previous report, and it makes imminent sense to keep it there, since these two reports are interrelated. I don't see this as a report as such, but more as an attempt to show the WP:BOOMERANG effect of reporting a user when the reporting user is himself the one who started the edit war. As I said in my very first warning to him on his talkpage, it takes a lot of chutzpe to revert an edit as edit warring when you yourself are the one who started the edit war. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment:No subsections please(!). One report at a time. It's easier for us if you stick to the standard formatting. El_C 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Isn't your version newer, thereby a stable (2012-2017) version was already existing before you added you changes? El_C 23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I say this because you keep calling your version the stable version. El_C 23:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can try and support my position with some diffs later, but there can be no doubt that Dailycare's first edit preceded mine, as you can see above. That alone would lead to a tentative conclusion that the version I reverted to was the stable one. Again, I'll look at it in another 12 hours, after my working day. It is early morning here. Debresser (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I say this because you keep calling your version the stable version. El_C 23:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The wording was changed first changed on January 9 by Dailycare in this edit. That edit was reverted in the next edit to this article two days later, which Dailycare undid another three weeks later in what we now know to be his first revert. There was one more challenge of this material three hours later, till Dailycare restored his version a month later and started what developed into an edit war with me.
- In view of the chutzpe of Dailycare, to make an edit and then start claiming it is a consensus version even though it has been challenged every time within a short time span, I now have come to the conclusion that Dailycare is simply being disruptive. His unfounded and unsupported claim of a WP:ARBPIA violation and his report here seem to indicate that is trying to game the system. Add to that the fact that he has not edited much outside of this article. I therefore now propose a block or topic-ban, to bring home the point that this is disruptive behavior and that this project will not tolerate disruption. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I take your point about the stable version—that 2012-2017 claim may be misleading if what you say truly represents the entire picture. Still, I suggest you take it to the article talk page and try to figure things out from there. I could block you both, or I could warn you both. And despite making your point about the stable version, I don't see convincing grounds to topic ban due to over-focus (even if that was the case, but his contribs show s/he edits many other articles), nor even that there's disruption on his part, to begin with. If s/he misunderstood the application of ARBPIA, it dosen't mean s/he is trying to game the system—assume s/he made a mistake. Might I suggest that you two try one or more of the following options: seek a Third opinion; list an RfC; go to the Reliable sources noticeboard; or try Dispute resolution requests. El_C 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm looking at the 2012-2017 links more closely and I'm no longer confident that you made your point regarding what constitutes the stable (prior) version. But I'm not sure it's that key, to begin with. El_C 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Each of this issues alone might have another explanation. The whole picture however shows a typical pattern of a disruptive editor: makes an edit, then claims it is consensus version, when reverted starts an edit war, in the course of that edit war resorts to WP:ARBPIA accusations and a WP:3RR report. When seen in the perspective of this editors overall behavior, these should boomerang back to him per WP:BOOMERANG. The issue itself can be resolved in other ways, but the behavioral issue should be resolved here. You statement that "I could block you both" I perceive applying pressure on me to desist from seeking that appropriate measures be taken regarding Dailycare, because there is absolutely no justification to block me, in view of the fact that I am protecting this article from inappropriate edits by a disruptive editor. Dailycare however needs to receive a clear message hat his edit warring, his false claims of a consensus version, and his gaming the system will not be tolerated. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am willing to be convinced, if you could show me that I am wrong. The way I see things, and the way the diffs show, Dailycare is pushing his own version. But again, please try to convince me. That would of course change my whole stance on the matter. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The way I see it, those old version do not support his precise text. And in any case, attribution of statements to their source is a normal thing on Misplaced Pages. I'd almost say, it is the standard. And that is all the stable version (I reverted to) is doing: attribute the statement to its source. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Each of this issues alone might have another explanation. The whole picture however shows a typical pattern of a disruptive editor: makes an edit, then claims it is consensus version, when reverted starts an edit war, in the course of that edit war resorts to WP:ARBPIA accusations and a WP:3RR report. When seen in the perspective of this editors overall behavior, these should boomerang back to him per WP:BOOMERANG. The issue itself can be resolved in other ways, but the behavioral issue should be resolved here. You statement that "I could block you both" I perceive applying pressure on me to desist from seeking that appropriate measures be taken regarding Dailycare, because there is absolutely no justification to block me, in view of the fact that I am protecting this article from inappropriate edits by a disruptive editor. Dailycare however needs to receive a clear message hat his edit warring, his false claims of a consensus version, and his gaming the system will not be tolerated. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: All I can say is that it takes at least two to edit war. How has s/he been more disruptive compared to you? Because s/he claims the consensus version? It is a content dispute, each side is making claims to bolster their prospective position. But what I am not buying is there being disruption from only one side. I'm just not seeing it. El_C 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then let me try to convince you. The one introducing the edit, is the one with burden of proof. As soon as their edit is challenged, WP:BRD, and plain logic, are clear that they should first establish consensus. Add to that the unfounded WP:ARBPIA accusation and the WP:3RR report here, both in bad faith as evidenced from the deceitful claims as though I am the one who is edit warring about a newly introduced version of mine, while the precise opposite is true. Not convinced yet? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Debresser, the IP changed the text on 27.12.2016. The version preceding his/her edits is the stable version since several years ago. You have adopted the IP's edit and are edit-warring it into the article despite being reverted. It's ok to admit you're wrong when you realize you've made a mistake. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove that patronizing last sentence. In any case, I'll look into what you say. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see that you are partially correct. You are referring to this edit. You neglect, however, to mention the history of that statement. It was first added in this edit from August 22, 2015, and at that time it read "The popular belief that the Diaspora occurred in only one sudden complete expulsion of Jews from Judea in either 70 or 135 CE is a great oversimplification, although the Bar Kochba revolt holds great symbolic importance within it" etc. However, you edited that statement twice into its present form: first major change on August 23, 2015, and second minor change on September 1, 2015. That first major change is precisely the unqualified and unattributed statement that is the root of our disagreement. So we are back to the fact that you made a change, which goes against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and then claim it is the consensus version. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- How, specifically, is it against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, though? El_C 14:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Debresser, as has been repeatedly discussed, the text has been in the article, in slightly changing form, for several years and far predating 2015. We are making progress though, since you now agree the version you've been reverting to is not the stable text. Concerning specific versions, here is another text from August 2015. --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @El_C That would be Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Dailycare That is incorrect. The paragraph was newly introduced in August 2015, as the diff shows, and no foundation for your changes to it was present before that. In any case, convinced now of your good faith, although deploring your methods (edit warring, making wild accusations and filing reports), I retract this report. I hope we can reach a consensus on the talkpage, although your rejection of my compromise proposal does not imbue me with faith. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- How, specifically, is it against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, though? El_C 14:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Debresser, the IP changed the text on 27.12.2016. The version preceding his/her edits is the stable version since several years ago. You have adopted the IP's edit and are edit-warring it into the article despite being reverted. It's ok to admit you're wrong when you realize you've made a mistake. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then let me try to convince you. The one introducing the edit, is the one with burden of proof. As soon as their edit is challenged, WP:BRD, and plain logic, are clear that they should first establish consensus. Add to that the unfounded WP:ARBPIA accusation and the WP:3RR report here, both in bad faith as evidenced from the deceitful claims as though I am the one who is edit warring about a newly introduced version of mine, while the precise opposite is true. Not convinced yet? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Reposting this, since Dailycare decided unilaterally that he is right and restarted edit warring, despite my protests on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours by CambridgeBayWeather. We also both decided to apply ARBPIA/Ds to the article effective immediately. El_C 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Doom guy007 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: )
Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doom guy007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- See above
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
Editor was blocked for 24 hours after the previous discussion, then went inactive for a couple weeks, came back and immediately made the same kind of edit-warring change that resulted in the earlier block. This account serves only one purpose apparently, and a much longer block is in order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Jojogungun reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: )
Page: Jess Phillips (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jojogungun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage
A slow-burning editwar by this user, who has reverted multiple users several times. Apart from the disruption, there seems to be several BLP issues that are being inserted into the article, against the consensus on the talkpage. Lugnuts 09:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. The user's entire edit history consists of inserting probably inaccurate claims based on original research linked to primary sources into just three politicians' BLPs (with edit summaries indicating the editor believes they are making an important political point certainly not supported by the source) and repeatedly reverting all attempts to remove such material even after multiple editors have explained why the material and edit-warring is inappropriate (admittedly, in the case of the more numerous edits on Chris Philp, appearing to revert mostly against a similarly dogged IP editor). Whilst they have sometimes responded politely to state their own position on the issue, they don't seem to be very good at listening to explanations about BLP issues and edit warring... Dtellett (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Only in death reported by User:DrKay (Result: )
Page: Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:
Comments:
- DrKay has repeatedly stated (despite being informed otherwise) that an RFC which the closer *specifically* stated only applied to the template Infobox Person, should apply to other infoboxs. This is an untruth. He used it as his rationale for removing the parameter from Infobox Royalty and edit-warring with me to keep it out. When confronted with his mistaken rationale, he decided to move the goalposts, as well as deliberately reverting in order to push it to 3rr, rather than accepting he was incorrect. So if you think this warrents blocking, given I was editing in good faith and DrKay was reverting due to his lack of knowledge of the issue in question, any sanction should apply to both parties. For what its worth, I pledge not to revert further without discussion elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)