EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 746: | Line 746: | ||
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours for long term edit warring. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours for long term edit warring. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Gaeltober]] reported by [[User:FDW777]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Gaeltober]] reported by [[User:FDW777]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Martina Anderson}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Martina Anderson}} <br /> |
||
Line 766: | Line 766: | ||
Article is under a 1RR restriction per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case]]. I attempted to meet the user half-way by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martina_Anderson&type=revision&diff=1021473553&oldid=1021453728 retaining some of their addition], and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaeltober&diff=prev&oldid=1021478949 twice] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaeltober&diff=prev&oldid=1021480876 requested] they self-revert their 1RR breach, and in the latter request asked them to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. They refused to do so. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
Article is under a 1RR restriction per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case]]. I attempted to meet the user half-way by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martina_Anderson&type=revision&diff=1021473553&oldid=1021453728 retaining some of their addition], and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaeltober&diff=prev&oldid=1021478949 twice] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaeltober&diff=prev&oldid=1021480876 requested] they self-revert their 1RR breach, and in the latter request asked them to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. They refused to do so. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
FDW777 has not attempted to "meet half way". He objected to "speculation" about Martina Anderson retiring, once the "speculation" was confirmed by Martina Anderson, he objected to the edit being too long. It was shortened. He then objects to the edit also saying why she is retiring. God knows why. The edit warring is his. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gaeltober|Gaeltober]] ([[User talk:Gaeltober#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gaeltober|contribs]]) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
FDW777 has not attempted to "meet half way". He objected to "speculation" about Martina Anderson retiring, once the "speculation" was confirmed by Martina Anderson, he objected to the edit being too long. It was shortened. ~He then objects to the edit also saying why she is retiring. God knows why. The edit warring is his. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gaeltober|Gaeltober]] ([[User talk:Gaeltober#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gaeltober|contribs]]) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours for violation of the [[WP:TROUBLES]] 1RR restriction. The user was given a chance to self-revert but would not do so. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:RossButsy]] reported by [[User:RPBG]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:RossButsy]] reported by [[User:RPBG]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 20:29, 5 May 2021
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Fleets reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Warned)
Page: Paul Gallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fleets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [9]
Comments:
This is a weird one, so apologies. I removed an unnecessary redirect from Gallen's article on the 20 April, New South Wales, Australia --> New South Wales, for obvious reasons. Fleets reverted three times with this rationale. I couldn't find any mention of the redirect being recommended at the suggested project page and "oh but it makes the location appear as the same colour" is just daft. They then made a fourth partial revert after I mentioned the unnecessary redirect isn't covered by any aspect of WP:RPURPOSE, but this time linking Australia on it's own. Again, simply to make the location appear as one colour. After getting clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking that Australia should not be linked (I pinged Fleets to the discussion, in an attempt to encourage them to engage on the matter, they declined), I removed it on 29 April. Fleets responded by edit warring the unnecessary redirect back in, including this, which to me has crossed the line from stubborn to plain old disruptive. I haven't left an edit warring template on their talk page as they're an experienced editor, which is also the reason why I didn't report their breach of 3RR on 20 April. – 2.O.Boxing 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
And the odd disruption continues. Has now removed Australia entirely, simply to make the location "appear as one colour". It's stepping into ownership territory now. – 2.O.Boxing 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to clarify for any reviewing admin, these three reverts by me were inline with 3RR, to enforce any clearly established consensus
which was clarified by experienced editors at the MOS:Linking discussion. – 2.O.Boxing 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
And now an attempt to avoid 3RR by reverting while logged out. – 2.O.Boxing 12:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Fleets is warned not to revert again at Paul Gallen unless they get a prior consensus in favor of their change. The page has been semiprotected four days by another admin so the IP's participation in the war is stopped for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:74 observer reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Troubles in Rosslea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74 observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [14]
Comments:
Clear attempt to repeat this addition, virtually word for word including the needless capitalisation of "Cleansing". User was informed about Troubles 1RR restriction, chose to revert anyway. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Also 1RR breach at second article at Provisional Irish Republican Army, to this version. Revert #1 and revert#2. FDW777 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Strong concerns here about Wikipedia being used as a platform for whitewashing the Provisional IRA and promoting their and other IRA incarnations' subversive agenda. Wikipedia should not allow itself be used for that disingenuous purpose. This behaviour has manifested in, for example, FDW777 claiming that the murder of a completely innocent civilian in Rosslea, Douglas Deering, is not 'notable', see: Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea. The Provisional IRA page is now in a ridiculous state with a plethora of inaccurate and biased 'citations' (over 400). 74 observer (talk)
- Result: User:74 observer is warned not to violate the WP:1RR restriction which applies to all articles that fall under the WP:TROUBLES decision. If you believe that IRA-related articles need improvement, you'll need to work for consensus on the talk pages. Due to the vivid language you used in your response above, it sounds like you have strong opinions on the matter. If you believe that FDW77 is editing in service of a personal bias, you should be aware of the rule against personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do believe that FDW777 is editing in service of personal bias and there are a number of other users doing so in The Troubles area as well. It seems they have the experience of using Wikipedia process in weaselling the result they seek (apologies - 'vivid language'). I've updated the page in question here with two murders that IRA supporters do not want remembered. It would be wrong not to do so. 'Wikipedia' will need to decide whether these IRA murders should be covered up (at least on Wikipedia). 74 observer (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:74 observer is now blocked 48 hours for continuing the edit war after being warned to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do believe that FDW777 is editing in service of personal bias and there are a number of other users doing so in The Troubles area as well. It seems they have the experience of using Wikipedia process in weaselling the result they seek (apologies - 'vivid language'). I've updated the page in question here with two murders that IRA supporters do not want remembered. It would be wrong not to do so. 'Wikipedia' will need to decide whether these IRA murders should be covered up (at least on Wikipedia). 74 observer (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:109.252.123.71/User:Mammooth reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Block, Semi)
Page: Proto-Indo-European homeland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.252.123.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mammooth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Et cetera; see history
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Svetlana Zharnikova ff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [25]
Comments:
User:Mammooth, obviously the same editor, has already been blocked for edit-warring on the same content. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Mammooth is blocked one month for apparent logged-out edit warring and the page is semiprotected for three months. Mammooth was partially blocked one week for warring on the same article just a few days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:109.93.0.125 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Semi)
Page: Turkish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.93.0.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [33]
Comments:
User:109.93.0.125 is disregarding the relevant discussion from approximately two months ago, namely under Talk:Turkish_Land_Forces#Active_since_209_BC?, where consensus was reached, while at the same time violating WP:NOPA and WP:CIVIL guidelines as seen in the "reason" of his second diff above, but also in a comment he wrote in the talk page, namely this one. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:109.93.0.125 is WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, violated repeatedly the WP:CONSENSUS, and is making personal attacks against editors using their ethnicities, which I had to remove myself: [34] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much to say. This IP user is doing unconstructive edits, personal attacks, and edit warring.--Visnelma (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:History of the Earth and World and history and history reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page: Kayqubad I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: History of the Earth and World and history and history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
The first revert is by an IP, which is most likely the same user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Sergow reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Both warned)
Page: Oradour-sur-Glane massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sergow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [40]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (Deleted by editor with edit summary "go away" [46])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [48] (editor deleted with edit summary "go away" [49])
Comments
- Account was created on 30 June 2020 [50], but only made first edit yesterday. [51]
- Unless I am missing something I am only seeing 3 reverts, so not a 3RR violation. You seem to list a bold edit as a revert above for some reason with you two tied at 3 reverts each. Though I will agree it all looks fishy. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The reviewing admin should note that PakcMecEng is like a carrion crow in regard to me, sticking his nose into my business whenever and wherever possible. He is totally biased, and any opinions he expresses should be automatically ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed some really basic grammar errors. I described what I was doing in the edit summaries. I did not expect thanks, but I certainly did not expect to be attacked in this way. This aggressive and thoroughly unpleasant user has not made any coherent case for undoing my edits. Obviously, there is no coherent case for restoring ungrammatical text. They have claimed that I need to establish a consensus for correct grammar, pestered me repeatedly on my talk page, and now report me here. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous reaction to someone fixing errors in an article. Sergow (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also note that items 1 and 3 on the list here are not reverts. To be attacked and misrepresented in this way for fixing grammar errors really is quite disgusting. Sergow (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The nature of the edits is irrelevant. Your edits were disputed, which means the dispute needs to be cleared up on the talk page, before the edits can be restored. You were told this on the article talk page and on your own talk page, but ignored this to restore them. All the edits were the alteration of existing material (hence reverts, per WP:Revert), not the addition of new material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's your dispute, exactly? Sergow (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not for discussion here, that's for the article talk page, and you don't get to restore your edits until that is resolved. This is about your editing behavior in not waiting for resolution, which generally only comes from other editors get involved. There is no critical need for your grammatical "corrections" to be put in the article without delay. (See WP:There is no deadline) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- At some point you're going to have to reply to the question of why you§ reverted..... stop the run around to the question posed to you directly a few times. What are the problems with the edits?????Moxy- 00:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've already answered you on the article talk page: your grammatical "corrections" were not improvements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- At some point you're going to have to reply to the question of why you§ reverted..... stop the run around to the question posed to you directly a few times. What are the problems with the edits?????Moxy- 00:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not for discussion here, that's for the article talk page, and you don't get to restore your edits until that is resolved. This is about your editing behavior in not waiting for resolution, which generally only comes from other editors get involved. There is no critical need for your grammatical "corrections" to be put in the article without delay. (See WP:There is no deadline) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's your dispute, exactly? Sergow (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The allegation that @Beyond My Ken: has made against @Sergow: involves a strangely made-up, utterly pointless disagreement concerning the use of proper grammar (that is, the standard grammar used by educated people in an English-speaking country).
The issue is that BMK prefers the sentence:
A new village was built nearby after the war, but President Charles de Gaulle ordered the original maintained as a permanent memorial and museum.
rather than Sergow's sentence (actually, Sergow's improvement made the single run-on sentence into two sentences).
A new village was built nearby after the war. President Charles de Gaulle ordered that the ruins of the original village be maintained as a permanent memorial and museum.
Sergow gave a very cogent explanation for the changes on the article's talk page.
BMK's reply was "You may have carefully considered them, but they're still not improvements."
BMK has a consistent behavior of finding a recent change and reverting it without making an edit summary to explain why the change was made. BMK does this even when the change is an improvement to the encyclopedia. This is what BMK has done here. Consistent with past behavior, BMK's process is to revert/disagree, with little more than an opinion,/revert/disagree, and then declares an edit war. And as BMK's want, takes it to here to the Administrator's Notice Board seeking endorsement. BMK has difficulty with collaboration and compromising with other editors.
BMK's doesn't present any logical reasons for maintaining the "status quo ante" other than a dislike of Sergow's change and the peculiar requirement that the change does not have WP:CONSENSUS. Seriously, correcting poor grammar requires a consensus? On the article's talk page, Sergow makes a very cogent observation, "Either you do not understand English grammar, or you are just trying to be a bully." I vote "bully" and since Sergow's first edit was on May 1, Beyond My Ken is BITing.
If this was the first time BMK created such a tempest in a teapot, I would not be involved; however, BMK does this type of warring and bringing his "issues" to this notice board frequently to have his changes endorsed. When called out, BMK, usually has no legitimate argument, so will fall back on some misdirection claims all of the great editing done in the past and how hard BMK has worked. (BMK you don't need to make that argument here as I have just done it for you. What you have or haven't done in the past is not particularly relevant to this unwarranted disagreement with Sergow.)
Osomite hablemos 05:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- As the reviewing administrator will obviously understand, whether Sergow's edits were "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. I believe them to be not improvements to the article, but Sergow obviously believes otherwise, that's in the very nature of an editing dispute. Nor is this board intended for general character assassinations such as Osomite's just above. This board deals with edit warring, and, as WP:EW clearly says: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: you have no logical argument to support your position, so you rebut with the charge of "character assassination". Have you no sense of decency? Osomite hablemos 19:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Sergow and User:Beyond My Ken are both warned. I see three reverts by each person. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate being "warned" for having been attacked by this editor. They have given up on this fight, it seems, but have immediately sought another fight: [52]. They are clearly out of control. Sergow (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Darouet (Result: No action)
Page: Id Kah Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previously editing as Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: (see below)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [53] @ 15:53, 2 May,
"Undid revision 1021000963 by Deku link...
- [54] @ 16:00, 2 May, same revert
- [55] @ 16:05, 2 May, same revert
- [56] @ 16:11, 2 May, removes recently added content, also disputed [57][58][59]
- [60] @ 16:20, 2 May, as above
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and section
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [62]
Comments:
Horse Eye's Back states that the fourth and fifth reverts don't cross the WP:3RR bright line because "That fourth diff isnt related to the other three"
. This is despite my protest [63], "Just because the statement was contested a couple days ago doesn't mean that removing it now no longer counts as a revert,"
and the definition of 3RR at WP:EDITWAR:
The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons.(emphasis added)
Horse Eye has subsequently argued [64] that they "removed a statement in breach of WP:BLP (a WP:3RR exception even if it was a revert)"
. However, Horse Eye has breached 3RR to remove the imam's insistence that his mosque — the most venerated in Xinjiang — is real (widely reported in Chinese media, e.g. here [65]). As discussed on the talk page [66], it's highly dubious to use WP:BLP to effectively slander a living person and prevent them from defending themself or their religious community. Horse Eye's insistence that BLP exempts them from 3RR looks like a classic case of WP:CRYBLP, that while
a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute.
I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert [67], and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert and they have not done so. Unfortunately, because Horse Eye believes that a 4th revert on other contested material on a page doesn't break 3RR, and/or that they are exempt from 3RR in this case, they have effectively promised (e.g. here [68]) this behavior is not going to stop. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Clause struck, and italic text added, per Horse Eye comment below. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Current consensus on Xinhua is that they are not a reliable source for such statements "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” I went through a great deal of trouble to replace an unreliable source with a reliable one, Darouet even thanked me for doing so[]. The contention "I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert.” is false, my last edit to the page [69] was *before* Darouet’s first edit to my talk page [70]. I made it clear that I was acting under BLP in my talk page edits as well as in the relevant edit summaries, there was no consensus to include the contested BLP information so it *must* immediately be removed or sourced to a WP:RS, thats exactly what I did. Beyond all that there is no ongoing conflict, why Darouet thought it was necessary to file such an aspersion filled and error ridden report is beyond me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also jeezy petes Darouet by "this behavior” do you mean removing a completely unsourced BLP statement or do you mean removing a poorly sourced BLP statement? Because both happened in that diff and both are required by policy. we are all required to do that per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple editors support inclusion of the text, and Jume's comments are also video recorded, leaving no doubt as to their veracity. BLP is meant to protect living people, not prevent them from defending themselves. If an editor believes 3RR no longer applies to them because they can spuriously claim a BLP exemption, they will edit war without acknowledging 3RR. That's what has happened here, and you're promising it will continue to happen. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have also opposed inclusion... As you well know, without a consensus to include a poorly sourced BLP statement stays off the page (or perhaps you did not know that?). BLP is broader than that. How does their being a video change the WP:RS situation? Videos are as reliable as the source which publishes them, they are not themselves sources and videos are no more veracious than any other form of media. I promise to continue to follow our WP:BLP policy, if the policy changes so will my editing behavior. It would be wonderful if you would start following the BLP policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also please acknowledge that you now understand that you were mistaken about the timeline of events and that all my edits to the Id Kah Mosque happened before your first post on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- A BLP exemption to 3RR requires a
clear violation
of BLP policy, not a dubious case. Otherwise both BLP and 3RR become meaningless. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)- Using Xinhua for a BLP statement related to Xinjiang, islam, and the the Uyghur genocide is a clear violation of our BLP policy, we clearly have consensus that Xinhua is not a reliable source in that situation. Did you see the second post? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- All of this is proving my point - you believe that WP:3RR doesn't apply because you're right, but here you're using "BLP" against the subject in question. If this issue isn't handled here it needs to be escalated to WP:AN because according to this logic, you can break 3RR to remove Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, any time a human being ("BLP") is involved. -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- No claims are being made against the imam and we’re only talking about Xinhua not Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- All of this is proving my point - you believe that WP:3RR doesn't apply because you're right, but here you're using "BLP" against the subject in question. If this issue isn't handled here it needs to be escalated to WP:AN because according to this logic, you can break 3RR to remove Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, any time a human being ("BLP") is involved. -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Using Xinhua for a BLP statement related to Xinjiang, islam, and the the Uyghur genocide is a clear violation of our BLP policy, we clearly have consensus that Xinhua is not a reliable source in that situation. Did you see the second post? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- A BLP exemption to 3RR requires a
- Multiple editors support inclusion of the text, and Jume's comments are also video recorded, leaving no doubt as to their veracity. BLP is meant to protect living people, not prevent them from defending themselves. If an editor believes 3RR no longer applies to them because they can spuriously claim a BLP exemption, they will edit war without acknowledging 3RR. That's what has happened here, and you're promising it will continue to happen. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: No action. It is unclear that 3RR was violated on 2 May and anyway that is now three days in the past. The parties seem to be engaged now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Globe and Mail about a similar issue. Trying to get an answer at RSN looks to be a better idea than an edit war. If the RSN regulars don't believe the issue belongs there, the matter may need to come back to Talk:Id Kah Mosque or go through DRN or an RFC. In my opinion people may be trying to get answers that the sources are not strong enough to deliver. We can't know everything we would like to know. The final answer may be to tweak the prose so it doesn't exaggerate WP's level of confidence in whatever is really happening. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Zeinab mandour reported by User:CaroleHenson (Result: Blocked)
Page: Awad Haj Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zeinab mandour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78] and discussed at the Teahouse [79]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [80]
Comments:
They have declared a WP:COI [81] and seemed to indicate that they were aware of the WP:COI policy, but have kept on editing the article, no posts on that talkpage. I suggest a block from editing the article (not the article talkpage) for the time being.
Note: CaroleHenson, your Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; link is to article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I was very confused about the whole process. It happens that it did post on the article talk page - actually twice it seems... and I thought it was supposed to go on the user's talk page, so I posted it there. So, it looks like it posted three times in total. Yikes!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I looked at the instructions for reporting here once and yikes indeed, was not going to attempt that. But I have twinkle now so I may try it one day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked 24h by Cordless Larry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I was very confused about the whole process. It happens that it did post on the article talk page - actually twice it seems... and I thought it was supposed to go on the user's talk page, so I posted it there. So, it looks like it posted three times in total. Yikes!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am assuming that from this point forward, discussion should take place to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. So, I started Edits made with specific points to discuss based on their attempted changes to the article that the user can comment on when their 24 hours is over.
- My question for moving forward is: since this user has declared that they have a conflict of interest, is the user allowed to make edits to this article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per the guidance at WP:COIEDIT they shouldn't. I think it's fairly likely an admin would consider such editing WP:DISRUPTive, and block again. They are of course welcome to contribute BLP-good sources at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- My question for moving forward is: since this user has declared that they have a conflict of interest, is the user allowed to make edits to this article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:146.115.183.91 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Blocked for 36 hours)
Page: Pablo Hidalgo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.115.183.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021149756 by SunDawn (talk) I recommend the user read the guidelines for biographies of living persons. It is their responsibility to seek consensus before reinstating the content. This is explicit in the guidelines. There is no requirement to seek consensus before deleting content, per BeBold."
- 04:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021148853 by SunDawn (talk) “Unexplained content removal” is not a valid reason for edit-warring, especially when explanations have been provided here and on the Talk page. Get consensus there before reverting."
- 04:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021142783 by Nemov (talk) User Nemov has now violated the three-revert rule by undoing my edits three times. The user should be reminded that no consensus is required before deleting content, though consensus is explicitly required before reinstating it. I suggest user Nemov make his case for reverting on the Talk page."
- 03:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021139003 by Nemov (talk) The guidelines are clear that a user must seek consensus before restoring deleted material. I suggest the user read the guidelines on living persons. It is the responsibility of whoever would restore the content to seek consensus in the Talk page (where there is clearly no consensus), not the deleter."
- 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021018632 by Nemov (talk) “If [deleted material on living persons] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” User did not seek or obtain consensus. Additionally, *several* high-quality sources are required for inclusion in articles about living persons."
- 05:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */ A Twitter spat from six months ago is not notable by the standards of biographies of living persons. Other biographical articles do not list every social-media fracas a notable person is involved in, even if they received transitory media coverage."
- 05:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */A transient Twitter spat is not a notable event in anyone’s biography. Other articles about public figures do not list every social media flap they trigger."
- 04:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */Removed non-notable content."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 04:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Pablo Hidalgo (HG) (3.4.10)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 05:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "/* 146.115.183.91 removal of content */ new section"
Comments:
User insisting to delete content that are well-sourced and well referenced. User has reverted more than three times in past 24 hours. User insisted that others seek consensus, while themselves didn't seek consensus and didn't respond to warnings and talk page of the article. SunDawn (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked for 36 hours. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:TimeToMakeAStand reported by User:Poojean (Result: Blocked )
Page: Eternals (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TimeToMakeAStand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 10:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "among sus"
- 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "none of u are admins, you have no authority here, at all"
- 10:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "pics or it didn't happen, bring it on"
- 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "The Cast and Characters section does not obey the same strict rules, we can infer that this is the true cast order based on plot info"
- 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 01:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "that's bullshit"
- 00:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "The official cast list on the website does not include Chan, yet Feige said she is effectively the lead role of the film, therefore she goes at the top"
- 15:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Eternals (film)."
- 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eternals (film)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 10:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Edit warring"
Comments:
New user, only posts on one topic, keeps making same revert multiple times in course of one day. Claims that they "do not back down" on user page. Asks editors requesting that they refrain from edit warring that they "cash [them] outside" on talk page. Poojean (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked 60 hours as disruptive editing based on battleground behavior. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Luwanglinux reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked)
Page: Anglo-Manipur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luwanglinux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] [90]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
I am not TrangaBellam, but I would point out that the editor warred with four different editors here: me, Austronesier, Gotitbro and TrangaBellam. The talk page discussions are akin to beating a head against a wall. No conclusions are ever reached. The editor also gives all of us warnings on our talk pages: [92], [93], [94]
The user has a persistent history of edit-warring, ever since came on the scene. His contributions history tagged mw-undo shows him doing:
- 3 reverts at Puya (Meitei texts) all on 24 October 2020
- 1 revert at Manipuri cuisine, also no 24 October 2020
- 6 reverts at Meitei people ( 4 reverts between 24-26 October 2020)
- 13 reverts Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 (4 reverts on 29 October 2020, 3 between 25-27 November 2020)
- 4 reverts at Manipur (princely state)
- 5 reverts at Anglo-Manipur War, plus two others apparently not tagged as mw-undo
Some of this edit-warring was also regarding WP:COPYVIO, for which he had to face an extended block. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments
I wonder if user Kautilya, TrangaBellam forgot wikipedia is a platform for collective efforts,most of the time I faced revert from him it was because of this specific reason Manipur was not a part of India or Manipur was sovereign(independent). I am not trying to shove my personal POV to wikipedia but trying to help improve the content and correctness of information in the article I edited with reliable references,The specific reference I added to Causes section of Anglo Manipur War was Kautilya choice as a notable source[95]. I discussed a lot on talk pages and even corrected his concerns regarding punctuation.To me Kautilya and TrangaBellam behaviour is like we don't like this so this is not allowed. He did not even like the insertion of Major Paona Brajabasi at first, he even reverted two times on Khongjom battle content 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Collective effort" by no means implies that you get to railroad your POV, no matter what objections may be raised. All Wikipedia content requires WP:CONSENSUS. It is ironic that you open a talk page section called "Seeking consensus" and then reinstate your content! You were specifically warned by TrangaBellam that he was the fourth editor that was oppositing your edit, and if you reinstated it, you would be taken to this noticeboard. You still reinstated it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- What user TrangaBellam did was not a revert,he firstly removed the One event two state journal reference and next thing he edited a bit and finally removed the causes section stating badly drafted,with due respect I asked others opinion time and again including yours as well as listened to their opinion and reflect it on my edit and give edit summary as anyone to freely improve the content I added with reliable source which is totally in a collegial spirit but you were acting too bossy and acted as if you don't like certain lines so this can't be accepted irrespective of the source.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is the difference between your original contribution and your latest reinstatement. As you can see, most of the content is still there, except for one small passage that TrangaBellam removed, saying it was duplicating material that is covered in another section. My original objection saying that it was too much space being given for one scholar's views (not facts) has not been addressed. TrangaBellam said the section was "very poorly drafted". That has not been addressed either. You added four new citations at the end. They were all deadlines. I flagged them, but you haven't bothered to fix them. Neither do we know where in those book sources support for the material is supposed to be found.
- Since you start off by claiming that your content is fine and reinstate it immediately, your claim that you are "listening to their opinion" isn't evidenced. You are basically WP:STONEWALLING the discussion and reinstating the problematic content endlessly. Our only option seems to be to get tired and give up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well I have stated anyone can modify my edit on causes section by using reliable source, and I did not object your point of view when you reminded me I neglected the rot in Palace of Manipur among the brothers ( any one can refer talk section) and blamed only British Government .Problematic content for why? because It was not written in the way you want?..user TrangaBellam and you are similar in editing style removing content or reference or texts he do not like sucha as this [96] ..No matter how much one try to cooperate if the other party is like a curled tail of a dog, consensus is almost impossible. Also in the article of Kabaw Valley#History you claim the history section as POV even if there is clear evidence of all content added with reliable source, it seems like your usual habit to put POV tag if the contents do not satisfy what you expect and you never bothered to modify or improve the history section of that article with reliable source to remove that tag yourself...My only option seems to be ignore every article you took interest in too.. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks to me that User:Luwanglinux is risking a block for long-term edit warring on South Asian topics. He might be able to avoid this if he will promise to make no more reverts on articles he has previously edited without first getting a consensus on the talk page. His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was not reverting article on my personal POV or without reliable source , I never say my edits are all genuine(
His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced.
) but I hope for a cooperative editing environment instead of reverting every edits users have a better choice of checking the information added and present it in a more readable way , Was I at fault for inserting topic about Khongjom battle along with Major Paona Brajabasi role in the war with source which Kautilya reverted twice...hope other editors do check why such edit warring even happened ?, am I the only one who is at fault in edit warring of Anglo Manipur War ?🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)- Luwanglinux, please answer yes or no whether you agree to wait for a talk page consensus before making any reverts on South Asian articles you have worked on previously. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I always agree to wait for consensus not only on South Asian article but any article in English wikipedia, but its very hard to reach consensus if other party act like owner of article and have right to choose what should be inserted or not, should not consensus be reached based on the topic and its reliability with notable source? Also admins kindly see the the edit warring history of the user Trangabellam (the one who warned me for edit warring also reported me to ANI ) [97] his edits were not constructive at all, see his latest edit on Manipur related article [98] , user like him never bother trying to search for source or checking the information added previously 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Luwanglinux, please answer yes or no whether you agree to wait for a talk page consensus before making any reverts on South Asian articles you have worked on previously. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was not reverting article on my personal POV or without reliable source , I never say my edits are all genuine(
- What user TrangaBellam did was not a revert,he firstly removed the One event two state journal reference and next thing he edited a bit and finally removed the causes section stating badly drafted,with due respect I asked others opinion time and again including yours as well as listened to their opinion and reflect it on my edit and give edit summary as anyone to freely improve the content I added with reliable source which is totally in a collegial spirit but you were acting too bossy and acted as if you don't like certain lines so this can't be accepted irrespective of the source.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – One week for long term edit warring. I was hoping that this user would agree to wait for consensus on the disputed articles, but a discussion at User talk:Luwanglinux did not result in clear acceptance of my proposal. I'm opting for a regular block. Since the user has been alerted to WP:ARBIPA, a topic ban remains an option if the unusual editing pattern continues. Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors, even giving them templated warnings for their misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Knownnotknown reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)
Page: Depression (mood) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knownnotknown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "This is my 2nd request but instead of edit war (which I will loose since you have more edits), why will you not discuss at the existing long discussion with more eyes at WT:MED. See the FAQ link in the header of the destination. This is not a link to primary source. It is an implementation of the primary source. An implementation of a primary source is by its very nature a discussion of the primary source. The FAQ page has an evaluation of the PHP9 over 1000+ patients by a trained psychaitrist"
- 13:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "WT:MED is the right place for this discussion. Do not involve me in a edit war. You have more edits then me and I will loose the edit war. Please present your viewpoint on WT:MED existing discussion. Why are you not doing that?"
- 13:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Quote me where on WT:MED I have been told that this is a primary source. Please continue your discussion on WT:MED instead of continuing your edit war from yesterday. Like I pointed out on WT:MED you had not read the destination links before reverting my edits. Have you had time to look at the destination and look at the FAQ there. PHQ9 is not a primary source it is a well researched gold standard of measuring depression. Find me alternative link, I will replace. Given stigma this is impt. tool"
- 12:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "PHQ9 is a clinically validation reliable source. This was discussed in length at WT:Med. To prevent edit war continue discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression"
- 10:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "PHQ9 is gold standard of measuring depression. It is clinically validated in large scientific trials. The linked tool is private and non commercial. Private tools nullify social stigma. Stigma stops ~50% from seeking help. If you can find another private non commercial tool, I will replace the link. See long discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression To prevent edit war please continue the discussion at WT:MED"
- 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Please discuss if this is spam at WT:MED in the existing comprehensive discussion. That is the right place to decide if it is spam instead of your pronouncement."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine "/* Referencing the use of the PHQ9 for depression */ new section"
Comments:
My opinion on mental health comes with 20 years of working on mental health with the most innovative startups in silicon valley.
I am trying to use my experience to point out that lot of research shows mental health stigma causes millions of deaths worldwide. Since people due to fear of being judged do not seek help. I am sure each of you reading this can relate to social stigma's negative effects on mental health.
Mental health of today is the AIDS of 1980's
The way to counter stigma is to provide early detection tools where people are certain that their information will not be stored in a giant database and then used for advertising or worse yet being leaked and resulting in social stigma.
I gave link to clinically validated and researched tool to measure depression. This is the gold standard of measuring depression. I was told by moderators on WT:MED e.g. WhatamIdoing that this was a relevant external link but not a reference. This destination URL is secondary in nature based on the results of the research which comes from over 1000 depressed patients discussed on the FAQ section of the tool.
I would like to point out that MrOllie reverted multiple edits without looking at the destination URL. I was able to expose him on WT:MED since during yesterday's discussion on WT:MED a moderator commented he could not access the tool. I sent an email to the webmaster and I got a reply saying that the tool was only accessible within 5 miles of Stanford (ip-based-geo-tagged). Subsequently they removed the block.
I would like to point out I requested MrOllie and Megaman_en_m multiple times to continue conversation on the WT:MED existing discussion which they did not.
Also the destination link is completely non-commercial. There is not even links to other tools or articles on the destination link.
I have no stake in the destination URL. Find me an alternative link and I will gladly replace. My only stake is to make this privacy-first tool that nullifies mental health stigma available to the masses. I am convinced this will lead to early detection of depression and save 1000's of lives.
I have come to this with best intentions. I hope you are able to see through the edit war started by MrOllie where my comments were just ignored, opinion from other moderators on WT:MED was ignored and the destination URL was not even seen.
Knownnotknown (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours You should stop reverting even if you think it is correct. There are other ways to resolve disputes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Dokabutts6 reported by User:Fyrael (Result: Blocked)
Page: Darren Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dokabutts6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [99]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous warning by EdJohnston
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Another reversion after their previous 24-hour ban. They have yet to make any attempts at communication. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Stale. The last revert was a week ago. Report this issue again if it continues and mention the prior complaint EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User is now blocked 3 days since they continued reverting on 4 May. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Beyondsweetful reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Lake Sevan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyondsweetful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [100]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107] [108] [109]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
I believe admins need to take a look at the activity of this user. He makes no contribution other than edit warring, despite multiple warnings, and does not seem to be willing to engage in a constructive discussion in order to reach a consensus. He violated the 3RR rule, as could be seen from the above diffs. Grandmaster 21:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Khirurg reported by User:Randam (Result: Declined)
Page: Neo-Ottomanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; diff
Comments:
I complained earlier about the disruptive behaviour of user:Khirurg here on this page, where he only got a "warning". However, this user keeps continuing these practices. The latest example is where this user leaves the discussion in the talkpage unanswered for 3 months, but is quick to revert edits in less than 1 whole day, only to still keep the talkpage unanswered.
Secondly, the user gives me the impression of pov-pushing instead of talking (see point 4). Because again, the user is not even checking his own references beyond the title, as explained here, and still keeps on reverting. Randam (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- No violation One edit a month isn't a major problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:2601:249:1781:1230:D0A0:D59A:ECE:8E87/64 reported by User:Retrotechexpert (Result: Semi)
Page: DeLorean time machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 2601:249:1781:1230:D0A0:D59A:ECE:8E87/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020373539
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020672972&oldid=1020373539
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021103320&oldid=1021043841
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020688784&oldid=1020685619
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021380257&oldid=1021318332
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3AD0A0%3AD59A%3AECE%3A8E87&type=revision&diff=1021320802&oldid=1021317956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A5507%3AB3C4%3A2879%3A6C15&type=revision&diff=1021320814&oldid=1021318585 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A8110%3AD56D%3A172E%3ADBDD&type=revision&diff=1021320764&oldid=1021318985 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF&oldid=1021388914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021399118&oldid=1021388588
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1021389495
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3AD0A0%3AD59A%3AECE%3A8E87&type=revision&diff=1021320802&oldid=1021317956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A5507%3AB3C4%3A2879%3A6C15&type=revision&diff=1021320814&oldid=1021318585 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A8110%3AD56D%3A172E%3ADBDD&type=revision&diff=1021320764&oldid=1021318985 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF&oldid=1021388914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.45.255.223&oldid=1021400070
Comments:
See previous submission for identical edits where this (apparently) same user was blocked for sockpuppetry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1020721423#User:MikeJones19888_User:GullWing88_reported_by_User:Retrotechexpert_(Result:_Socks_blocked) -- this user continues to make edits to the above article with the intention of replacing valid references in lieu of advertising and solicitation web address links. The "DeLoreanRental" web address advertises DeLorean Time Machine rental services. The page has been scrubbed numerous times for this offense, but this user is very determined despite blocks. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User continues to make identical edits (this time as 2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF) to add advertising/solicitation web address links for DeLorean rental services in continued acts of spam vandalism. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Would administrators consider adding the domain at the center of the edit war -- deloreanrental.com / www.deloreanrental.com -- to the Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist to prevent further edits by this motivated spammer? Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User at another IP now 73.45.255.223 continues to make edits to add spam. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected three months. There is a lot of spam energy here. Unclear if any IP blocks would be worthwhile. If these guys are all advertising a single web site, www.DeloreanRental.com, it might be worth filing this at WP:WPSPAM because blacklisting is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Buralar Dutluktu reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Blocked)
Page: Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buralar Dutluktu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [110] Although this editor's preferred lead is substantially similar to earlier versions [111]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:24, 4 May 2021
- 02:37, 4 May 2021
- 03:17, 4 May 2021
- 03:58, 4 May 2021
- 04:14, 4 May 2021 not a revert to the same old version, but it is a revert of the previous edit
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff and again by another editor:diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The current wording in the lead was settled during a discussion on the talk page here. The discussions were extensive so I can't really give a diff here, but just look at the talk page and you'll see extensive discussion about the correct wording to use. Buralar Dutluktu has not edited the talk page.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; diff
Comments: The editor made five reverts despite being warned twice about 3RR. They were reverted three times by General Ization, twice by myself, and once by Srnec. They also label edits they disagree with as "vandalism". They are a new user, however. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Plea: I did it because I think it was serious attack of anti-Turkish and Islamophobic racist vandalism campaign. There is no consensus of "ethnic cleansing" on talk board. There are no valuable sources or scientific facts rely on historical evidences. They did more reverts than me today. Thank you for your time and consideration. Buralar Dutluktu (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC).
- Blocked – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:EnPassant reported by User:122.56.201.177 (Result: Semi)
Page: Markovian Parallax Denigrate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EnPassant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [112]
Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markovian_Parallax_Denigrate&action=history
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markovian_Parallax_Denigrate&action=history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, multiple people have tried to reason with this user on talk page and they don't care.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [113] User will revert it but here you go.
Comments:
The user is a troll 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Also i know that Veverve is a sockpuppet or their friend. 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Troll" and "sockpuppet" absent some kind of evidence in the form of diffs are personal attacks. Pure bad faith report from an IP who keeps editing against consensus to push their preferred version and inserting content gathered from a non WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected six months. The IP editor seems to be promoting a Youtuber. They have been triggering the edit filter. This page had to be placed under WP:ECP back in 2020; let's see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:50.68.189.119 reported by User:Pupsterlove02 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.68.189.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021403503 by Malcolmxl5 (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown, or else the people would get confused"
- 14:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021402842 by IceWelder (talk) But we really need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"
- 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021402658 by IceWelder (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"
- 14:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021149859 by IceWelder (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Multiple users have attempted to discuss with IP at their talk page, but IP keeps blanking; see talk page history. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Apart from their own talk page, they also reverted Category talk:Video games scored by Bill Brown, where I had responded to them. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 6 months for disruptive editing by User:K6ka. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Ckruschke reported by User:KidAd (Result: Both warned)
Page: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ckruschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [114]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [117]
Comments:
- Fairly clear-cut case here. Ckruschke has violated WP:3RR for the purpose of inserting the names of non-notable individuals under "notable alumni" on South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. User has repeatedly ignored WP:ONUS, which states
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. In response to attempts to engage with them on the article's talk page and a standard warning template warning them of their WP:3RR violation, they left me a personalized and highly condescending message that reads, in part,Hi - welcome to Wikipedia! I see you have been an editor for a little over a year and its great that you have taken such an interest in Wikipedia! We need more editors with your passion. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the right on this issue
. While I appreciate the welcome, it is three years overdue. And though I appreciate that Ckruschke took the time to complement my passion, however sarcastically, I must disagree. Wikipedia needs more editors who can abide by WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF guidelines. KidAd • SPEAK 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- It appears that my friend, KidAd, is very protective of his edits. I was attempting to restore the page as his non-constructive edits constitute a clear change to the Notability policy on the SDSM&T page (WRT notability being primarily embodied in whether the person has a Wikipedia page which is astonishingly laughable). Instead of taking the issue to Talk, since the WP:ONUS is on KidAd as the editor who is attempting to change policy, he kept reverting my restoration to the original page so that discussion could happen on a clean slate. Clearly the editor does not understand what WP:ONUS means and is simply using it and other Wiki terms, like WP:3RR, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:AGF, as hammers to further his viewpoint and shout down a dissenter. Its too bad that new editors get their back up after an editor reaches out to them (sarcasm? No...) and learn all the "get out of my yard" Wikipedia buzz words to tell other editors to shut up long before they understand what terms like onus and civility actually mean... Note that the only time this editor reached out to me was to use the Admin hammer so clearly WP:CIVILITY is for lessor editors than he.
- I started a Talk post on the page, which is the clear way to solve this rather than bringing it to admins and what he should have done after my first restoration. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me - I don't have an ego so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Ckruschke (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Result: Both User:Ckruschke and User:KidAd are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again (or if they modify the list of alumni) unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Magherbin reported by User:Ayaltimo (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ifat Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Magherbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]
Diffs of the user's reverts: [126] [127]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] [129] [130] [131]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132] [133]
Comments: This user is incredibly disruptive literally waging edit wars on multiple pages and was recently blocked for edit warring. It seems like he didn't learn his warning. [134] Ayaltimo (talk) 21:36, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ayaltimo keeps defending Ragnimo's edits who is now blocked for socking and I was reverting their disruption across several articles [135] Ayaltimo and Ragnimo have been harassing me for quite some time including personal attacks on talk pages see [136]. I warned the user [137] but it has continued [138]. Ayaltimo now claims I made 4 reverts on the Adal Sultanate article when i've only reverted twice [139] I've read the references in most of the articles in question and they do not state whats implied on the pages. This user and I are currently in a content dispute with an ongoing RFC, it is not going in Ayaltimo's favour hence this report. [140]. We can continue to discuss on the talk pages, i'm fine with that, I had thought the user would understand the consensus from the RFC which clearly reveals users oppose the views held by Ayaltimo and Ragnimo sock Magherbin (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- You kept removing sourced content and I kept restoring the revisions on Adal Sultanate like four times and some of them even were before when Ragnimo got banned. You have a habit of randomly removing sourced content and not discussing it on the talk page. You may not do it three times within 24 hours but you still do it regardless of how long it is and you think this is a way to avoid a warning. You are incredibly disruptive and you have been ever since you were unblocked from edit warring. Let the moderators review your behaviour because this cannot continue. Ayaltimo (talk) 23:28, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
- When I undid your revision on 27 of April [142] you came back a week later making the same comments "see talk page" when you could've just tagged me. [143] then you continued to edit war. You're very disruptive and you did the same thing on other pages. After you were blocked you should've learned your lesson so it's important I report your misconduct again. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:26, 05 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've explained why I removed the content, however the edit summary provided by you here is insufficient [144], and you have broken 3rr before and let off with a warning hence pretending otherwise is futile [145]. Even after that warning you continued editwarring but no action was taken [146] My suggestion is to withdraw the case or risk a block as well. As I stated earlier I will not continue reverting and I have not violated 3RR. Magherbin (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ayaltimo seems to have withdrawn per this edit [147]. Magherbin (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- When I undid your revision on 27 of April [142] you came back a week later making the same comments "see talk page" when you could've just tagged me. [143] then you continued to edit war. You're very disruptive and you did the same thing on other pages. After you were blocked you should've learned your lesson so it's important I report your misconduct again. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:26, 05 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, User:Ayaltimo, per this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:78.43.29.7 reported by User:Poojean (Result: Partial block)
Page: Dersim rebellion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.43.29.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021478265 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts"
- 22:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021477874 by FDW777 (talk)"
- 22:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021476882 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts."
- 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020700704 by Semsûrî (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dersim rebellion."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
- Result: The IP editor, User:78.43.29.7, has been partial-blocked from editing Dersim rebellion for two weeks by User:ToBeFree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Tony1811 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)
Page: Joy Behar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tony1811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [148]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [158]
Comments:
Tony1811 repeatedly included a BLP violation (i.e., criticism toward the subject when no source that exists mentions such criticism, not even the ones they cited). Sources they cited include a video from Newsmax, a deprecated source; a Washington Examiner report via MSN, a source that should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims
per WP:RSP; LifeZette, a questionable source; and Fox News, which is biased or opinionated for politics
per RSP. Please let me reiterate as well that none of these sources even mention the criticism included in any capacity. They claimed that their violation of BLP policies was part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media
as well as free speech issues
. KyleJoantalk 00:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Gaeltober reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Martina Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaeltober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [159]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [163]
Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. I attempted to meet the user half-way by retaining some of their addition, and also twice requested they self-revert their 1RR breach, and in the latter request asked them to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. They refused to do so. FDW777 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 has not attempted to "meet half way". He objected to "speculation" about Martina Anderson retiring, once the "speculation" was confirmed by Martina Anderson, he objected to the edit being too long. It was shortened. ~He then objects to the edit also saying why she is retiring. God knows why. The edit warring is his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeltober (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours for violation of the WP:TROUBLES 1RR restriction. The user was given a chance to self-revert but would not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:RossButsy reported by User:RPBG (Result: )
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: RossButsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Turning pages into a battleground when explaining they would refrain from edit warring (3RR not violated) RPBG (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Safyrr reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )
Page: British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Safyrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Alright, it looks like the talks on the talk page are over. Here is the restored text with adjustments. If one would like to know where they can find more detailed info about what is covered in the lead in the article, they can consult the Geography section, the Economy section and/or the navbox. Glad this is over"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) to 06:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- 06:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Look at his contributions, all he does is revert peoples edits and he never contributes anything of value, its gonna be hard to get approval from this guy"
- 06:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021454989 by Magnolia677 (talk) revert vandalism"
- 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "thirteen provinces and territories, kuroshio current, english de facto, borders what, area, Vancouver population, politics"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Columbia."
- 06:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ +"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- The editor left this on my talk page as I slept before resuming the edit war:
- I have noticed that you have are in an edit war, reverting good edits and citing false reasons for doing so. Like in the article, the paragraphs introduce resume and talk about: the less than 5% arable land that is used for farming, forestry and mining, cinematography, shipping, the real estate market, tourism, geography, climate, population size and area size. You can find this information in the article itself in the Economy section and the Geography section. Furthermore, the introduced texts revises the lead by making it neutral and straight-to-the point, creating a more encyclopedic leading text. Do you have any further questions or additions? Safyrr (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- The editor decided to carry on a discussion on their own talk page rather than on the article's. This is what leads me to believe that the editor is new. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
New editor who is pushing specific (and poorly formatted) content. Not clear on WP:BRD or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring The reported editor thought that they could close the discussion]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: That edit is what made me decide to look into this user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Odd. I thought I copied the link. I'm sorry that I failed to paste it in. The editor has been wikihounding me as well: reverting two explained reverts I made. I am currently opening a discussion on the first article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: That edit is what made me decide to look into this user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed the wikihounding. On the other hand, the user has been inactive for over an hour. I'm going to wait and see what they do next. I'm monitoring their contributions. If they participate civilly in talk page discussion, all is good. If they continue with edit warring or wikihounding, then I'm prepared to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable approach. As I noted, they are likely a new, enthusiastic editor. WP:AGF, I recognize that the edits were an attempt to improve the article, even if it was not particularly well received or successful. I do not want to annoy someone who is earnestly attempting to improve Wikipedia. I do want the editor to start behaving in a more cooperative way. I noted on the article's talk page that it was a sincere effort to improve the article, and hope that we can collectively achieve this goal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Like Walter I think we have a new editor that wants to help. They just need to learn the wiki ways. ....that unfortunately is a huge learning curve. Think they are a bit younger....well then me a 60 year old. ....why? because they rely on websites over scholarly publications. They are doing well with additions regardless of minor problems formatting and sourcing preferences. We just need them to understand we have a process and that process is not fast.... we are not McDonald's we are any encyclopedia bulit by consensus. Let's get someone to welcome them with open arms and try to explain a little bit how things work. I would but my disability causes my grammar voice to text to be horrific. Pick 3 of a potential good editor here if we can just point them in the right direction Moxy- 20:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Fredbasing & User:148.252.133.24 reported by wolf (Result: )
Page: Type 26 frigate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Fredbasing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 148.252.133.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [164]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [165] (as Fredbasing)
- [166] (as Fredbasing)
- [167] (as 148.252.133.24)
- [168] (as 148.252.133.24)
- [169] (as 148.252.133.24)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170] (DE warning)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [171] (see comments)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [172]
Comments:
Edit amounts to removal of a significant amount of content. Was first attempted twice by way of another IP address on April 24 ([173]). Seven edits in total, the last five linked above occur in the space of less than 2 hours. Reverted by 4 different editors, with repeated encouragement to use the the talk page, which this user couldn't have missed as they've shown they're quite familiar with edit summaries, using them extensively. (Also see the near identical summaries between the IP and registered accounts). User also familiar with EW policy, stopped at 3RR with the IP account, then created the user account and continued with the exact same reverts. This kind of policy-dodge should not be permitted. - wolf 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Zero attempt at resolving the editing not attempt made in the talk page or information on why edits where being reverse however I have put into the information box why I was removing the unnecessary information from the page FredBasing 18:07 5 may 2021 (bst) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbasing (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't delete part of the report, you can contest them here in the comments, (as you just have), but really, you should be trying to explain why you feel your repeated attempts to remove that content was justified, instead of leaving it be and discussing it as you were encouraged to do. (Not now, back then). - wolf 17:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)