EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: ): Fix my comment |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 899: | Line 899: | ||
'''Note''': Extraneous report of above. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu 🐲</span>]] ( [[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]] ) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
'''Note''': Extraneous report of above. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu 🐲</span>]] ( [[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]] ) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Hanoi Road]] reported by [[User:Grandpallama]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Hanoi Road]] reported by [[User:Grandpallama]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ernest Shackleton}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ernest Shackleton}} <br /> |
||
Line 923: | Line 923: | ||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernest_Shackleton&diff=988581138&oldid=988579851 Reverts continue] despite the editor having acknowledged the filing here by responding (in a fairly ridiculous manner) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandpallama&diff=988580635&oldid=988580162 on my talkpage]. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernest_Shackleton&diff=988581138&oldid=988579851 Reverts continue] despite the editor having acknowledged the filing here by responding (in a fairly ridiculous manner) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandpallama&diff=988580635&oldid=988580162 on my talkpage]. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandpallama&diff=988583864&oldid=988582877 Plus this insanity]. There are obviously serious behavioral issues beyond just failure to observe 3RR. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandpallama&diff=988583864&oldid=988582877 Plus this insanity]. There are obviously serious behavioral issues beyond just failure to observe 3RR. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|b}} – 2 weeks. Nationalist edit warring about the Irishness of Shackleton. A perennial dispute. Wouldn't it be great if people could follow consensus? This user was previously blocked for edit warring on the same article. They were also blocked 72 hours on October 30. Any admin may unblock if they think the person will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:WikiCorrection0283]] reported by [[User:Beshogur]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:WikiCorrection0283]] reported by [[User:Beshogur]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 21:58, 14 November 2020
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:94.54.255.43 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Semi)
Page: Genetic history of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.54.255.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments: I tried to file a report here using Twinkle some hours ago, but for some reason that didn't work.
--Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The IP has now engaged in massive copyvios in the talk page Talk:Genetic history of Europe. –Austronesier (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
source one says;"there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world" source two is not about only assyrian people and their languages about all near eastern My sources is based a lot of different sources if you look at these source you will see in reference part please read carefully all of these source and these sources' sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
if we have disagreement, we can talk and solve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
we are civilized people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
such as Balkan peoples (such as Phrygians and Macedonian Greeks) sentences I added to page and it is a my mistake which I wrote to sources and I would like to my mistake fix
and other information which I write is based a lot of sources including sources' source and if you read to carefully you will see these informations and if you have a different arguement and scientific research you share same topic thus People see the different scientific sources which have different opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with whether you're citing sources. This has everything to do with repeatedly reverting an article or otherwise edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is a misunderstanding mutually and two side don't have a bad intent My sources are these
Collapse sources. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][5]My best regards References
|
- In striking contrast, there was an "extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations [Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Druze, Saudi Arabians][1]
and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries[2] (Turkey's neighboring countries are Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran, Cyprus)
The results of these scientific studies lead to the startling realization that Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, Lebanese are more closely related genetically to Assyrians than they are to other members of their own respective language families in Asia. These seven groups (and Jews) are genetically close[3]
The differences between the populations were not statistically significant, demonstrating once again the close genetic relationship of Middle Eastern populations to each other. In fact, the Palestinians and Syrians were so close to the Jews in genetic characteristics that they "mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations." As one of the Israeli scientists on the team said, "Eventually people will realize that they are not that different." Peace through Genetics?[4]
Seven different Jewish groups from communities in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were compared to various non-Jewish populations from those areas. The results showed, first of all, that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.[5]
The latter point is also made in studies of Jews. Based on earlier studies using classical genetic methods7 , Cavalli-Sforza et al. came to the conclusion "that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they have common origins."[6]
The PCoA clearly identifies four widely dispersed groupings corresponding to Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa (figs. (figs.1A,1A, ,1B,1B, and and2).2). In these figures, PC1 appears to separate the Africans from the other populations, whereas PC2 divides the Asians from the Europeans and Africans and PC3 splits the Central Asians apart from the South Asians.[7]
there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only marginally more dispersed than single-population samples from elsewhere in the world.[8]
and their correletaions
I behave to respectful to wikipedia administration's decision but I would like to share information in my hand last time I don't would like to misunderstand, I love every people in the world, I don't care their origins.I admire and love plurality origins and cultures. I only would like to contribution in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
- ^ {{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/
- ^ {{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/
- Result: Page semiprotected one month. An IP editor seems to be here on a mission and has made seven edits on 4 November. Over that period they have added thousands of bytes of material. Others have been removing it. The IP seems to have violated 3RR. Use the talk page to persuade others that your material belongs here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Lord Such&Such reported by User:Elmidae (Result: No action)
Page: Black marlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lord Such&Such (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12],[13]
Comments: After a short spat on my talk page that descended into mudslinging pretty quickly, no engagement on talk page but busy re-instatement of challenged edit.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- User not in breach of 3RR at this time. Attempting to engage on their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- All right, we made it to the talk page now; thanks. In absence of stonewalling-by-edit-summary, I can live with the disputed version being up while this is being sorted out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action at this time. Let us know if the reverting continues without any agreement on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Bhoke2081 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bhoke2081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 06:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "This is what the fact check websites say Epoch Times is. They are listed with Fox News."
- 06:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
- 05:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
- Consecutive edits made from 15:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) to 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- 15:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "Libertarian is an individual rights ideology that is not ethnocentric. For-example it is pro-immigration. From the Libertarian website, https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/ “ Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life. The vast majority of immigrants are very peaceful and highly productive.” This is a direct conflict with white nationalist ideology including Patriot front."
- 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "More evidence this is right leaning not far right https://www.adfontesmedia.com/epoch-times-bias-and-reliability/"
- 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
- 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Bhoke2081 was given two discretionary sanctions warnings, one for post-1932 US politics,[15] and one for the Falun Gong topic area.[16] This user is cleary not very concerned about 3RR or any sanctions. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Resolution attempted at Talk:The Epoch Times § Far-right descriptor. — Newslinger talk 06:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that in addition to this, this editor also vandalized Patriot Front (I reverted it as unsourced, then stopped and realized the organization is described as alt-right in the lead with numerous sources and is an infamous... well, look at the rest of the lead. It's not really something that they could legitimately be confused about.) It might be simpler to take this to ANI (or AE due to it all falling under the AP DS), since by my reading this editor has no constructive edits and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. They've done literally nothing in their entire time here but remove sourced content and add unsourced content, despite numerous warnings. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- While the sourcing to declare Epoch Times conspiratorial is fairly established, the sourcing in the article (at present) to call it "far right" in WP's voice is spartan. However, that's somewhat beside the point. The editor should familiarize themselves with other ways to resolve content disputes than 3RR. A brief restriction of editing privileges may give them time they could use to better familiarize themselves with our processes. If they fail to do so, I would suggest Binksternet is correct and they're not concerned about sanctions. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the best solution is an indefinite block as NOTHERE - I noticed the edit-warring last night but they hadn't had a 3RR warning. This morning I saw them pushing the argument that Nazism is left-wing. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely --RegentsPark (comment) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
User:EkoGraf reported by User:Peervalaa (Result: Filer blocked indef)
Page: Battle of Košare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EkoGraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User reverted stable article in question four times. Peervalaa (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: This user has not broken the 3RR, the first diff was from five days ago. Both the user being reported and the reporter are at 3 reverts. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doggy54321, Note: Peervalaa voluntarily agreed to comply with WP:1RR "for any edits you make to any article related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed)". To the best of my knowledge, they've been complying with that, but from what you say above, perhaps my checking is not entirely up to date. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- My mistake, I forgot that applies to anything related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed). I thought it only applies to article Battle of Paštrik. But I did ask you before several questions regarding restrictions you put on me and you provided no clear answer. I am also glad you mentioned above issues about unsourced casualties in same article (Battle of Paštrik) which I brought up to you (but with no results). Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- (side comment)@RoySmith: your approach was correct at that time. New editors shouldn't face admin measures immediately. The should have a period of grace, so that they can reflect on their editing and learn. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- RoySmith I earlier noticed the mention of Peervalaa voluntarily agreeing to comply with 1RR to issues such as the ones in question (due to his earlier blocks) and although he broke that agreement at both Battle of Košare and Kosovo War today, I refrained from including myself in the discussion that was ongoing at your talk page or reporting it because I thought I could resolve the issue with him through discussion. Apparently I was mistaken. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- EkoGraf, BTW, I get that some people feel I should have gone further here. My philosophy is to be conservative. I've already taken a few actions, so I think it's best if I step back and let other admins provide independent evaluations. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf and RoySmith:
- As you can see, the reporting user has reverted three times in 24h. They have broken their 1RR agreement or whatever it’s called. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doggy54321 Like I said, I noticed he broke his 1RR obligation, but thought the better course of action was to try and talk to him instead of making a report. Seems I was in error. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: yea yea I noticed that. If you had any interactions with them before today’s fiasco, it would have been better to just report as you would have seen their behaviour towards talk pages beforehand. It doesn’t really matter though, they’re being held accountable for their actions anyways. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doggy54321 Was my first time interacting with him. EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: yea yea I noticed that. If you had any interactions with them before today’s fiasco, it would have been better to just report as you would have seen their behaviour towards talk pages beforehand. It doesn’t really matter though, they’re being held accountable for their actions anyways. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doggy54321 Like I said, I noticed he broke his 1RR obligation, but thought the better course of action was to try and talk to him instead of making a report. Seems I was in error. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- EkoGraf, BTW, I get that some people feel I should have gone further here. My philosophy is to be conservative. I've already taken a few actions, so I think it's best if I step back and let other admins provide independent evaluations. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doggy54321, Note: Peervalaa voluntarily agreed to comply with WP:1RR "for any edits you make to any article related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed)". To the best of my knowledge, they've been complying with that, but from what you say above, perhaps my checking is not entirely up to date. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reported user comment: As the accused I would like to say I made three reverts (not four) after my own initial edit was firstly reverted by editor Peervalaa (which he then proceeded to do two more times). At that point, I left Pervalaa a 3RR warning, and myself stated I would refrain from making any more reverts/edits, because I really have no inclination at edit warring or breaking WP policy. Peervalaa's response was he left a 3RR warning on my talk page, after which he proceeded to make the report here. It should be noted I made attempts at discussing the issue with Pervalaa at both his talk page and at the article's talk page without any success. His response to my attempt at his talk page was to remove my message with an edit summary I was spamming him in broken English (in 10 years of editing Wikiedia first time I have been told my English was not proper) and was irrational. Meanwhile, his response to my attempt at the article's talk page was the report here. Peervalaa has also reverted my edits two more times today at the Kosovo War article and one at Battle of Paštrik, while again rebuking my attempts at discussion on his talk page. In my opinion this behavior isn't in the spirit of assuming good faith from your fellow editors, but the issue seems to already be an ongoing one since Peervalaa's actions, which led to his block three times in the last several months by @Vanjagenije:@El C:@RoySmith:, are already under discussion by other editors (@Ktrimi991:@Maleschreiber:) [22] (which he is also rebuking). In any case, if I am deemed to have broken 3RR I will accept any sanction deemed fit. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: you haven't broken the 3RR today, you are at 3 reverts. Peervala has a 1RR placed for all their actions to articles such as the one in question, so they have broken the 1RR already. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have not interacted on Wiki with EkoGraf, but I have with Peervala. All I can say is that it is ridiculous that Peervala has not been banned. The only thing they are practically doing around here is reverting and reverting to their preferred version. And not on one, but on several articles. If this discussion here is not closed with a block, then AE should be the path to follow. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous that you think you decide who gets banned. Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktrimi991: If this discussion here is not closed with a block, block him or me? Sorry Ktrimi991, didn't understand you there. EkoGraf (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment All edits by Peervelaa are reverts of the same content in the same 1-2 articles. Regardless of 3RR, the fact is that the editor has been edit-warring and getting blocked for trying to insert the same content for the past four months. They haven't stopped or used the talkpage at any point. The 1RR imposed by RoySmith had one effect: instead of doing 3 reverts per day, Peervalaa logs in a couple of times per week, does the same revert and then logs out. 1RR hasn't worked, so a longer block and a possible topic ban (Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo War) should be considered.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- "They haven't stopped or used the talkpage at any point" - that is your blatant lie and you know it [23]. The problem is no consensus is possible with you people as you simply ignore facts, sources and arguments when they are presented to you. Peervalaa (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per his statement in August it looks to me that Peervalaa had agreed to a 1RR on pages such as this one. (The restriction covers 'any article related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed)'). And his three reverts on 6th November do break the 1RR. If so it seems to be time for another block. The recent blocks of Peervalaa have been very long, as much as one month. (To compound the situation, Peervalaa has recently been edit warring *again* at Battle of Paštrik, the page which occasioned all of his prior blocks}. The only way I can see for Peervalaa to avoid another block is for them to accept a permanent ban from all Balkan topics. The alternative might be an indefinite block from Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The alternative may be looking into the issues I am pointing out and sanctioning other users too and not just me. But i guess that's just too much work for some of you here. I already explained my breach of 1RR above for which I apologize. Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: After your post here, Peervala reverted again on two articles. Idk why should so much time and energy be given to this particular editor. The only one thing they are doing is edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted articles only once per restrictions that are put on me, and you know very well I broke no rules by doing so. Again, who are you to call for other editors to be banned indefinitely, especially editors you are or could be in conflict with over editing Serb/Yugoslav-related articles? Your block log shows you were also blocked from editing 3 years ago. Peervalaa (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fine then. I have not edited these types of articles (I stick to pop culture), and here is my opinion. First off, Peervalaa please don’t bring up any one else’s block logs unless beneficial to the conversation. I’ve been blocked two times, how does that contribute to the conversation? My opinion is that Peervalaa deserves an indefinite topic ban at least. They have been edit warring and disrupting articles nonstop. Nevermind the 1RR or 3RR, edit warring is edit warring.
I reverted articles only once per restrictions that are put on me
- that’s still edit warring if you continue to disrupt the article. For example, this edit that you made three hours ago is still edit warring as you are reverting while in a talk conversation. That’s my opinion. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- And who are you again? I don't remember ever talking to you before. You said it yourself that you "stick to pop culture" so that may explain your baseless accusation of me "disrupting" article. I am going to bring up someone elses block especially if that someone has also been blocked and is calling for me to be banned indefinitely. "Deserves an indefinite topic ban at least" - at least? Would me being publicly flogged be more fitting punishment? Have you even looked into the issues Battle of Paštrik has for example (a reason for my sanctions)? Outcome that has no consensus, sources which prove my edits of the outcome of the battle are left while result is changed into opposite of what those sources say. And that has been done numerous times, by what I assume are someones sockpuppets. Arbitrary casualty numbers edited in without any actual source to back them up or worse arbitrary numbers added in while sources say otherwise. Many times I pointed that out to admin and now here. And nothing is done about it.
- Fine then. I have not edited these types of articles (I stick to pop culture), and here is my opinion. First off, Peervalaa please don’t bring up any one else’s block logs unless beneficial to the conversation. I’ve been blocked two times, how does that contribute to the conversation? My opinion is that Peervalaa deserves an indefinite topic ban at least. They have been edit warring and disrupting articles nonstop. Nevermind the 1RR or 3RR, edit warring is edit warring.
- I reverted articles only once per restrictions that are put on me, and you know very well I broke no rules by doing so. Again, who are you to call for other editors to be banned indefinitely, especially editors you are or could be in conflict with over editing Serb/Yugoslav-related articles? Your block log shows you were also blocked from editing 3 years ago. Peervalaa (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: After your post here, Peervala reverted again on two articles. Idk why should so much time and energy be given to this particular editor. The only one thing they are doing is edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The alternative may be looking into the issues I am pointing out and sanctioning other users too and not just me. But i guess that's just too much work for some of you here. I already explained my breach of 1RR above for which I apologize. Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- My edit which you pointed put as "edit war" is a stable version of Battle of Košare and if you actually bothered to visit edit history you would have seen its been there for a while. Removing that part without previous discussion on talkpage is what EkoGraf did (and that is why we are here) and as I explained in the edit summary changes will come once consensus over them is reached. Peervalaa (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok then, hi I’m Doggy54321 and I’m a generally unproblematic Wikipedian. I have been following this edit war and have looked into your contributions. If you read the conversation above, I have been involved. I do stick to pop culture, but I also have random pages like this page saved to my watchlist, and get involved in conversations when I’m bored/the Wikiflow on my Watchlist is slow and the only edits popping up are the ones from this page. From what I’ve seen, you have been blocked three times since July for edit warring at the same page, so my "baseless accusation" is actually justified. What’s more is you continue to disrupt and engage in edit wars. I’ve been blocked twice in the past month for edit warring, and I’ve tried to steer clear from the "undo" button as much as possible. You’ve been blocked three times and continue to engage.
"Deserves an indefinite topic ban at least" - at least? Would me being publicly flogged be more fitting punishment?
- no, I was gonna say maybe a temporary block would be better, that way you could learn from your mistakes and come back and try not to revert as much. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok then, hi I’m Doggy54321 and I’m a generally unproblematic Wikipedian. I have been following this edit war and have looked into your contributions. If you read the conversation above, I have been involved. I do stick to pop culture, but I also have random pages like this page saved to my watchlist, and get involved in conversations when I’m bored/the Wikiflow on my Watchlist is slow and the only edits popping up are the ones from this page. From what I’ve seen, you have been blocked three times since July for edit warring at the same page, so my "baseless accusation" is actually justified. What’s more is you continue to disrupt and engage in edit wars. I’ve been blocked twice in the past month for edit warring, and I’ve tried to steer clear from the "undo" button as much as possible. You’ve been blocked three times and continue to engage.
- My edit which you pointed put as "edit war" is a stable version of Battle of Košare and if you actually bothered to visit edit history you would have seen its been there for a while. Removing that part without previous discussion on talkpage is what EkoGraf did (and that is why we are here) and as I explained in the edit summary changes will come once consensus over them is reached. Peervalaa (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – User:Peervala blocked indef. They are unwilling to limit their reverts and have previously been blocked for as long as a month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Alex.nezz reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Caracalla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alex.nezz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Add specs. Get informed before twisting historical origins. His father is Libyan making him Amazigh (north african ethnic group)"
- 02:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Get informed before trying to arabize historical figures."
- 02:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Early life */Stop trying to arabize people. Focus on the bedoins."
- Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 02:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Added specific detail"
- 02:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Early life */There were no such things as an arab during that period. North african are Amazigh."
- 02:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 02:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Caracalla."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see; User_talk:GPinkerton#Caracalla)
Comments:
Repeated insertions of unsourced and incorrect ethnic claims. Attempted resolution at my own talk page, which was blithely ignored and responded to with a tirade of falsehoods and intensified edit warring. User then created my own user page, which I do not want and want deleted please. GPinkerton (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG appropriate here; GPinkerton has been repeatedly asked to begin a discussion on the article talk page and refuses to do so, keeps edit-warring against Alex.nezz. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The comment above is ill-informed pearl-clutching and derives from a long-standing vendetta Elizium23 has against me and should therefore be disregarded for the POV (and baseless) attack it is. @Elizium23: I have not refused to do so; avenues of discussion have been exhausted already, and comments have already been made on the article talk page. GPinkerton (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Had Elizium23's judgement not thus been clouded, they would remember that reverting vandalism does not count as edit-warring. GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG appropriate here; GPinkerton has been repeatedly asked to begin a discussion on the article talk page and refuses to do so, keeps edit-warring against Alex.nezz. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The user changing established content (by removing sources and instead writing their own opinion) should go to the talk page, not the user reverting vandalism. The user in question was invited to do so, but they presented no argument and no sources and complained about "dirty arabization". We also had a brief discussion on my profile. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The editor concerned is also vandalizing articles including Septimius Severus, Geta, and Severan dynasty. Indeed, their entire history of contributing is basically vandalism. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The POV-pushing vandalism extends to Publius Septimius Geta (father of Septimius Severus), History of Algeria, Tipaza, History of the violin , Andalusian Arabic , Catholic Church in Africa, as well as this very page. This editor needs blocking ASAP. GPinkerton (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment - I request any passing admin to first look at WP:ANI#Alex.nezz before using the block button here. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Khmm-hmm? reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Khmm-hmm? blocked 24 hours, FilmandTVFan28 warned)
Page: Elinor Wonders Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khmm-hmm? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "All signs point to they are rea l"
- 02:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "IMDB sources these New episodes, leave them on there, is like Harvey Girls Forever season 5!"
- Consecutive edits made from 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "You just don't get it!"
- 02:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "IMDB sources these New episodes"
- 02:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 01:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Characters */"
- Consecutive edits made from 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Coincidentally, these episodes are also part"
- 00:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Broadcast */"
- 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Broadcast */"
- 01:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 21:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC) to 21:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- 21:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 21:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Elinor Wonders Why."
- 03:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elinor Wonders Why."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User keeps adding false and unsourced content. Keeps wanting to use IMDB as a source which is not reliable. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Khmm-hmm? has been blocked for 24 hours, and I've warned FilmandTVFan28 to be careful and not engage in edit warring themselves. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Eulerfan1999 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Warned)
Page: Boro people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eulerfan1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Bodo includes L2 speakers."
- 11:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Bodo/Boro is not group its a language we taking top most figure or total language strength."
- 11:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 987337167 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
- 07:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 987174828 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boro people."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 12:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Numbers, November 2020 */ new section"
Comments:
This POV pushing user wants to add the number "1416125" for Assam (census 2011) in the article infbox which is number of speakers of the "Bodo language group" (bolded as BODO in the link), which includes Kachari, Mech and other languages [24]. The total number of speakers instead as per the source is "1,407,711", mentioned near the "Bodo/Boro" in the link. As an analogy, the census includes Rajbanshi, Chakma and Hajong among others in the "Bengali" group. And a lot more in the "Hindi" group, including Bhojpuri, Mewati, Garhwali, etc, all of these languages and their speakers are independently notable and have Wikipedia articles. We do not include the group numbers, but the specific language figures in respective ethnolinguistic articles and related pages. Pinging @Chaipau, Uanfala, and Austronesier: Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Eulerfan1999 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
User:BilCat reported by User:24.249.54.254 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
Page: Tallboy (bomb) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Boeing B-29 Superfortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BilCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BilCat has been repeatedly going to pages and reverting additions repeatedly while falsely claiming there are no citations. His user talk page history is also full of complains by other users who have complained about the same thing.
Just in the last few hours he has taken place in the following disruptive edits/edit warring:
Case 1: repeatedly reverting article Tallboy (bomb) while refusing to acknowledge an entire section about the Korean war.
Case 2: repeatedly reverting article Boeing B-29 Superfortress while ALSO refusing to acknowledge the entire section about the Korean war.
Case 3: reverting article MG 151 cannon by falsely claiming there was no citation. There is clearly a citation at the end.
Since Bilcat clearly has a long history of behaving this way listen in his user history, I request some sort of action be taken.
24.249.54.254 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The content is clearly sourced. There are entire sections listed as sources.
- Where are you getting the idea that there are no sources?
~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B020:FA45:9157:DAE0:17A0:2905 (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just looked at BilCat's contributions. No 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Filing IP, Special:Contributions/24.249.54.254, has been blocked 36 hours by User:Oshwah for persistent addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:24.128.184.241 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Semi)
Page: Integralism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.128.184.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User 24.128.184.241 has repeatedly blanked and reverted the page for Integralism despite attempts for mediation and support.
The following are revisions to the page that have occurred: 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
Despite repeated efforts, including a message to the IP's talk page, they have repeatedly blanked, reverted, and violated NPOV. Please enact action.
Pbritti (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Update 11 November
IP user 24.128.184.241 has, despite multiple requests, repeatedly reverted the page for Integralism despite my efforts to mediate. There was a brief exchange on the talk page that evidenced the IP attempting to publish their personal opinion rather, followed by two reversions outside of a consensus. If someone could please intervene, the version the IP keeps reverting to contains NPOV and typo issues. Not sure if C.Fred could help. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP user seems to be warring to insert a personal point of view. He declares the Second Vatican Council to be heretical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Eleanorlorraine reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Warned)
Page: Not Fucking Around Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eleanorlorraine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 06:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 06:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- 06:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Third attempt to correct inaccurate information in this article edit request on 08 Nov 2020 For The Page NFAC per John Fitzgerald Johnson's request"
- 06:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Third attempt to correct inaccurate information in this article edit request on 08 Nov 2020 For The Page NFAC per John Fitzgerald Johnson's request"
- Consecutive edits made from 05:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- 05:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Fixed Name from John Jay to Just John Fitzgerald Johnson. Also corrected Established information to reflect the true purpose according to the Founder. Finally, removed Texas as the state of origin that is incorrect information."
- 05:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Background and organization */Changed name From John Jay to John Fitzgerald Johnson."
- Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- 03:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 03:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Background and organization */"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "article"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 06:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "reply"
Comments:
user keeps changing from sourced to unsourced material. Will not engage on article or user talk page MartinezMD (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Eleanorlorraine is warned for violating WP:3RR on this article. She is now discussing on the talk page and listening to advice from User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
User:194.223.31.39 reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Blocked)
Page: Battle of Megiddo (1918) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.223.31.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [987641248]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:18, 31 October 2020
- 20:15, 31 October 2020
- 13:11, 1 November 2020
- 13:11, 1 November 2020
- 02:23, 3 November 2020
- 08:24, 8 November 2020
- 10:38, 8 November 2020
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [987005734]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
{{User has persistently vandalised the info. boxes on this article, to promote Turkish commanders (specifically Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and denigrate German commanderd=in-chief. There has been no explanation in the edit summaries, nor any attempt to discuss the changes in the articles' talk pages. Note that this IP user also has a suspected sockpuppet account, User:Johnny15678, which has been used to make identical edits. HLGallon (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)}}
- This editor is terminally disruptive across many articles, and completely ignored the latest (since thare have been many) request to discuss edits on the articles talk pages. A complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Australian IP editor and "decisive" Turkish victories has already seen several pages semi-protected to stop them edit-warring. FDW777 (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 week. See also the ANI complaint mentioned by User:FDW777. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Covaroo reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Blocked)
Page: 2020 Ulsan Hyundai FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Covaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [25]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 2020-11-08T06:07:51
- 2020-11-08T05:54:11
(Undid revision 987657302 by Mikeblas (talk))
- 2020-11-07T20:12:38
- 2020-11-11T02:55:57
Undid revision 987834490 by Mikeblas (talk)
After returning from a 24-hour block:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2020-11-08T06:02:47 and 2020-11-11T06:51:36. And then later: [28]
Comments: I'm just trying to fix up an undefined reference and add a couple of trans-title
parameters. Persistent reversions without explanations, no engagement on talk page.
- Blocked – 24 hours. User:Covaroo has been edit warring since 8 November to retain a broken reference. Their versions in the page history all have a red error message at the bottom. Covaroo did not respond to Mikeblas's question on the article talk page. They also deleted a warning of the 3RR report from their user talk without replying here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping @EdJohnston:. User:Covarooo has returned from that block period only to do the same reversion again. Not sure if I'm meant to open a new entry here, or escalate (to ANI?) or ... ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have now blocked User:Covaroo indef. If there is some rationale for the unusual behavior which has continued since their first block expired, they can explain it in their unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping @EdJohnston:. User:Covarooo has returned from that block period only to do the same reversion again. Not sure if I'm meant to open a new entry here, or escalate (to ANI?) or ... ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Vallee01 (Result: Declined)
Page: Anarcha-feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sangdeboeuf (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]
Comments:
Although not breaking the 3 edit revert rule, there has been a long a grueling discussion on the page anarcha feminim on the image. After a long, debate the consensus was to remove the image of the collage and to keep the picture of a protest in Cologne. However Sangdeboeuf has completely ignored this, the editor has changed the image without notifying anyone and not discussing it on the talk page. The editor is attempting to circumvent the process of discussion instead simply ignoring it. Despite the long discussion process and final result. Both on the lead image and on the raised fist, both of which were still in discussion. Despite stating to "see talk,. Sangdeboeuf did not state anything of the talk for this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcha-feminism&diff=987303974&oldid=987284653, or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcha-feminism&oldid=987304270, [[or this one|[[34]] despite being a long discussion in which there either was a no consensus, or the consensus was directly against Sangdeboeuf, as an example removing the lead image and replacing it with the anarcha feminist flag. Sangdeboeuf did not notify anyone of this removal, or say anything to the already existent discussion. Sangdeboeuf has ignored discussion instead to change the article to how they want to be, edit warring and consistently ignoring the talk page. Vallee01 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Declined No evidence of a violation. Further, Sangdeboeuf has engaged in discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- What about this: [[35]] [[36]], a long discussion on the talk page, that was ignored? How is that allowed? Vallee01 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Vallee01: There was no discussion of either the addition or removal of the teddy-bear image. You boldly added it, I reverted the addition. As for the raised-fist logo, there is indeed a discussion on the talk page, in which you seem to be ignoring the arguments of two other editors. Final note: I wasn't alerted to this report, although I found it anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- You simply removed images without notifying anybody, you did not mention anything to the talk page as the removal of the imae. Your stating overly vague statements what was I ignoring? Please state. Moreover you are automatically pinged with Sangdeboeuf. Vallee01 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- You specifically ignored my comment, "This isn't an article about radical feminism or anarchism in general. Images should relate specifically to the topic of the article." Instead you filed this frivolous AN3 report. Regarding the teddy bear, I'm not required to notify anyone when I revert unhelpful edits. See WP:BRD. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- You simply removed images without notifying anybody, you did not mention anything to the talk page as the removal of the imae. Your stating overly vague statements what was I ignoring? Please state. Moreover you are automatically pinged with Sangdeboeuf. Vallee01 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Vallee01: There was no discussion of either the addition or removal of the teddy-bear image. You boldly added it, I reverted the addition. As for the raised-fist logo, there is indeed a discussion on the talk page, in which you seem to be ignoring the arguments of two other editors. Final note: I wasn't alerted to this report, although I found it anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- What about this: [[35]] [[36]], a long discussion on the talk page, that was ignored? How is that allowed? Vallee01 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Marcelrayduriez reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Indef)
Page: List of longest novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marcelrayduriez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but the consensus among other users seems clear.
Comments: The user has also received a final warning over self-promotion ([44]). Toccata quarta (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Toccata quarta, This user (Marcelrayduriez) also reported in AIV. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Further comment by Toccata quarta: The user has now blanked my user page. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Indef, for being a promotion-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
User:10stone5 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked)
Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 10stone5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [45]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- first edit
- second edit
- third edit
- fourth edit
- fifth edit
- sixth and seventh edits (consecutive, probably counts more like one)
- eight edit
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]
Comments:
This user has been repeatedly making POV changes to the page, such as calling the sources "left-wing" or "mainstream media" in-text, adding statements not present in sourcing (such as commentary about Regulation A offerings), adding statements like "claimed" and "alleged" (WP:SAY), and changing RfC agreed-upon text without discussion (RfC). They are not exactly reverts, but each edit is making approximately the same changes, in various places in the article. I am surprised to see this behavior from someone with the reviewer userright and over 10,000 edits, who has been editing fairly consistently (at least since ~July). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring and POV-pushing. This page is under the American politics discretionary sanctions. This creates an expectation of neutral editing and high-quality sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Atelerixia reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned)
Page: Dependent territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atelerixia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [48]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]
Comments: The user in question came off a block for edit warring to restart one of their previous edit wars. CMD (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Atelerixia is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Dependent territory without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Rmjowett reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)
Page: Naturopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rmjowett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988300789 by Alexbrn (talk)"
- 09:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Please find a better definition if you're not happy with this"
- 09:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988297533 by Alexbrn (talk)"
- 09:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "You clearly know nothing about naturopathy. The history still caries forward through to this very day. Do your research then get back to me."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Naturopathy."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Note even since this report has been filed, the editor has continued hammering away at the Naturopathy lede. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )
Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First revert 17:59 12 nov:[58] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [59] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [60]
- Second revert 20:33 12 nov [61] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
- This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.
- This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here and here, and here.
- This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
- Here, which is part of the complaint above
- Other pages: Here, here,
- Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
- This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
- This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
- This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a definitive block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:100.2.103.24 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Page protected)
Page: Enrico Fazzini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.2.103.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 23:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 23:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Another user, User:Rikfaz, has continued the edit war; I think this user maybe linked to 100.2.103.24. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have opened an SPI into this editor. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page fully protected for one week by User:Johnuniq per WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:BlueboyLINY and User:Tvstationfan101 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Page protected)
Page: WMBQ-CD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tvstationfan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [64]
Diffs of BlueboyLINY's reverts:
Diffs of Tvstationfan101's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Comments:
Who's right? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I didn't see this request but I have responded to a request at WP:RFPP by full protecting the page. I have told the warring parties that it will stay locked until they work it out. They have been careful to avoid WP:3RR by spacing out their edits, but the war has been going on for months. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected – 1 year by User:MelanieN as explained above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: Western philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teishin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [76]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]
Comments:
The user reverted an edit of a section that had stood for almost two weeks. In so doing, they replaced sourced content with material copied from Ancient Greek philosophy. I have tried engaging the user on the talk page, but they have been responding with bad faith arguments that make no attempt at finding a solution. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"Stood almost for two weeks." Sorry, but I was busy and was not devoting enough volunteer time to Wikipedia to address the introduction of these errors as quickly as might be desired. Such a "two week" perspective ignores how long the prior content stood -- BTW, we're talking about ANCIENT philosophy here -- to which my edits were largely reverting. After User: Keepcalmandchill began edit warring I opened up discussions on the relevant talk pages so that other editors with experience in these subjects would be alerted to join in. As Keepcalmandchill appears to believe, alerting other editors that there's an issue going on is something to be called "bad faith arguments, and represents a rejection of an "attempt at finding a solution."
On this matter as well as on the matter of what the content of the article should be, I do not agree with Keepcalmandchill. I suggest that for the time being that this matter be pushed down to the respective talk pages for further analysis by the editors. Teishin (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like a two-person edit war that's been going on since October 30. One admin response might be to block both editors. As an alternative, they could both agree to make no more edits until agreement is reached on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- How so? I have not reverted any edits between October 30th and today. I moved some content to Ancient Greek philosophy and replaced that with new content (that was sourced). Nobody made any objections to this until today. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest that Keepcalmandchill consider that the pace of editing differs by subject matter. I see in the contribs that Keepcalmandchill edits a lot regarding current politics. In such matters a couple of weeks matters a lot. However here we are discussing ancient philosophy. Two weeks is nothing. Teishin (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keepcalmandchill, you have made three reverts starting with your 23:23 edit on 12 November. How does that not count as edit warring? Do we need to fully protect both articles to stop this? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is that not within the three-revert rule? I have tried to find a resolution on the talk page. You will see there that my position is based on sources, while the other position is not. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I should add that I meant 'today' as in the last 24hrs. Furthermore, I am absolutely happy to continue discussing these changes, but as the talk page shows, it is not progressing at all with this user. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keepcalmandchill your expectations about how quickly things should happen are unrealistic. You lodge a complaint here instead of opening a discussion on the Talk page. Then when I open a discussion on the Talk page you conclude after just a few hours that "it is not progressing at all." Regarding your claim that your edits are based on sources, you do not seem to understand what your sources are talking about such that the information can be restructured into a Wikipedia article. This article is structured chronologically. Some schools arose in the Classical period and continued through the Hellenistic period. So, sure, a source will refer to them as "Hellenistic" as they were indeed active in the Hellenistic period, but since the article is structured chronologically, with a discussion of the Classical period, these Classical schools need to be included in the Classical period as they arose and were active in that period as well. The state of the article before you started changing it addressed this matter in a way that made it clear that these schools arose in the Classical period and flourished in the Hellenistic period whereas your changes introduced confusion on this matter.Teishin (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keepcalmandchill, you have made three reverts starting with your 23:23 edit on 12 November. How does that not count as edit warring? Do we need to fully protect both articles to stop this? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest that Keepcalmandchill consider that the pace of editing differs by subject matter. I see in the contribs that Keepcalmandchill edits a lot regarding current politics. In such matters a couple of weeks matters a lot. However here we are discussing ancient philosophy. Two weeks is nothing. Teishin (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- How so? I have not reverted any edits between October 30th and today. I moved some content to Ancient Greek philosophy and replaced that with new content (that was sourced). Nobody made any objections to this until today. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Withdrawn by submitter. Per this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: Hellenistic philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teishin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [83]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]
Comments: Just like with Western philosophy, no attempt to resolve a conflict over a semantic issue to which I proposed a resolution + removing sourced material. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The accusation that there has been "no attempt to resolve the conflict" is plainly false. I opened a discussion on the Talk page to attempt to resolve this conflict. Teishin (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Withdrawn by submitter. Per this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Wario-Man reported by User:Nasheen (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Golshifteh Farahani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [90]
Diffs of Wario-Man's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]
Comments:
Hey guys, this is yet again about 1 person (Wario-Man) trying to own a Wikipedia article (Golshifteh Farahani) for himself by banning away all other editors. This is excatly why dedicated new editors who actually try to contribute feel so helpless and just give up altogether. Keep in mind the reverted additions that he edit wars against are all sourced by ABC News, no less. Cheers. Nasheen (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Observation
There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latecappu about the filer. The Banner talk 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, The Banner. I just added a link to this case over there as well. Hopefully to keep it all in sync. Nasheen (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This is WP:BOOMERANG, abusing both 3RR noticeboard and warning templates.[96][97][98][99] The user has just violated BLP.[100][101][102][103] Why it's a BLP violation; please see these diffs.[104][105][106][107] Please take a look at the revision history of that article; started since 11 May 2020.[108] The user has been reported for sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latecappu. So he decided to come here while there is no 3RR and all of my reverts had a valid reason: reverted because he added unsourced stuff to a BLP article.[109] Reverted because sockpuppetry is obvious.[110] Reverted because the source is unreliable and does not support the claim.[111] Three reverts and all of them have edit summaries (reason). As I said, this is a WP:BOOMERANG especially after the SPI case. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that even after Wario-Man got Admin Reported for Edit Warring 3 times in a row.[112] Nasheen (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wario-Man kept deleting all the evidence and warnings from his Talk page, again and again.[113][114]. Nasheen (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND; ignoring WP rules and guidelines. Please review both article revison history (from 11 May 2020), the SPI report, his edits and how he used warning templates on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Look what he has done to my talk page. He continues restoring his meaningless warning messages; abusing warning message templates and talk page policies. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- And he did this[115] (editing his filled report) after his edit was reverted by Wikaviani, received a warning from Wikaviani, and Wikaviani's comment on here. Refused to use talk page and ignoring WP:BURDEN, filled a report, then acting as if he used talk page after the first revert or before coming to this board. This is the pure abuse of 3RR noticeboard. And take a look at his edits on the SPI report, only spamming irrelevant stuff. I really think this users is WP:NOTHERE and internet troll. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND; ignoring WP rules and guidelines. Please review both article revison history (from 11 May 2020), the SPI report, his edits and how he used warning templates on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case, filer tried to change long standing content without any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page, even after having been reverted, thus failing to behave according to WP:BRD.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your consideration, ---Wikaviani . A discussion was added to the article's Talk page just now; Featuring that ABC News source regarding Golshifteh Farahani, that Wario-Man keeps on dismissing time and time again. Nasheen (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Filer blocked for a week for clearly disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: )
Page: Hurricane Eta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988518828 by MarioProtIV (talk) its not oversaturated"
- 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "cant see any land on that image"
- 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Constantly reverts user’s edits to Eta’s image from a high quality image to a lower quality and oversaturated image. Does not listen to opinions and blames other people (as far as calling me “biased against” him on the discord. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Additional note: The same images are also the subject of edit warring at Saffir–Simpson scale, 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, and at List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging ChessEric who tried to stop the dispute. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked 72 hours in May for ownership behavior and edit warring.
They have been reported here three times altogether. It is high time for them to respond and explain how they will handle these things in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked 72 hours in May for ownership behavior and edit warring.
User:M*tesh reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Theory of Everything (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M*tesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 13:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) to 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 Britishbiographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic"
- 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic"
- 08:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and his success in the field of physics. The film stars Eddi"
- Consecutive edits made from 07:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) to 07:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- 07:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British Biographical Romantic Drama Film"
- 07:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
- 07:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Campaign to describe films as "British" */ new section"
- 14:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Theory of Everything (2014 film)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Similar behaviour on a range of other pages as well (eg The Imitation Game) - arguably now drifted into vandalism rather than edit-warring. ninety:one 18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours. The issue of getting proper sources to call a film 'British' appears to be described well in this post by the filer. This is not the first time we've seen a revert war about the nationality of a film. The people who want to make these changes are sometimes quite persistent. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Bluerules reported by User:Flyer22 Frozen (Result: Both warned)
Page: Legend of the Seeker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [116]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and here.
Comments:
The editor clearly does not understand our WP:Edit warring policy, or is purposefully misusing it. The editor claims that because they are correct on this matter, they are exempt from edit warring. As anyone can see, there is no such exemption at WP:3RR or anyone else at the Edit warring policy for a case such as this. Even if they are correct about what the accurate billing is at the article, that does not give the editor the right to revert over and over again. Even for the actual exemptions at WP:3RRNO, it states, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." I told this editor that they do not need to violate 3RR to edit war and that they can wait until the matter is resolved. Instead of waiting, they reverted again and proceeded to assert here and here that I am engaging in vandalism by reverting them. So, apparently, the editor doesn't understand our WP:Vandalism policy either. Regardless of whether not blocking Bluerules is deemed appropriate in this case, the editor needs to understand our edit warring and vandalism policies and be warned/advised in that regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was correcting the fact that Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker, not a main cast member. This is not a claim; this a fact. By reverting my edit, IJBall and Flyer22 Frozen restored incorrect information. Incorrect information on Wikipedia must be removed immediately. Bluerules (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- While technically Edit warring, this doesn't merit a block. There is currently a Talk page discussion. The editor in question has apparently checked the WP:Primary source in the question – it's just awaiting other editors to confirm this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That said, Bluerules should be clearly admonished for characterizing Flyer22 Frozen's simple following of the rules as "vandalism" – that should not go uncommented. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Frozen was continually restoring incorrect information and it did not appear he was acting out of good faith. He made a non-edit simply to admonish me in his edit summary and that's why I did not believe his restoration of this incorrect information was in good faith, which would be vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) IJBall, this isn't necessarily about blocking. That's why I stated, "Regardless of whether not blocking Bluerules is deemed appropriate in this case, the editor needs to understand our edit warring and vandalism policies and be warned/advised in that regard." It's about the editor not understanding our WP:Edit warring policy and reverting away on the basis of some false exemption. It's also about the editor not understanding our WP:Vandalism policy and throwing the word "vandalism" around willy-nilly. We should not let the editor continue to think that they are exempt in a case like this and that it's appropriate to do that. Otherwise, this will be an issue in the future. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is not "some false exemption". This was a case of incorrect information that needed to be removed immediately from the article. I understand the issue over editing warring when there isn't a clear answer, but this was a matter where verfiably correct information was being reverted and like I said above, incorrect information cannot be retained on articles. As for the vandalism comment, that was based on the fact that you made a non-edit simply to admonish me in the edit summary. By that point, it did not appear you were acting out of good faith and if you are restoring incorrect information not out of good faith, that is vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This latest post of yours reinforces what I mean about your WP:Competence. There is nothing -- nothing at all -- at WP:3RRNO about removing incorrect information immediately. Even in the case of WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO states, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It's not like the case in question is the type of BLP matter that WP:3RRNO is talking about anyway. Except for our BLP policy, there is nothing anywhere about removing incorrect information immediately. And in the case of billing information, that you state that you are correct is not good enough. Your content was disputed by an editor who disagreed with you. You were supposed to talk it out on the talk page...without edit warring/forcing your version in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Guidelines are not set in stone. My point has simply been that there are exemptions to the three-revert rule and just because it is not a specified exemptions does not discount it as an exemption. Wikipedia is about accuracy and I do not believe any editor would leave information they knew was incorrect on article. They would correct it as soon as they spot it. Another editor being misinformed does not justify retaining blatantly incorrect information for an indeterminate amount of time. For example, I once incorrectly wrote on the Miami Marlins article that they were the youngest expansion franchise to win the World Series. Another editor fixed this to say they were the second-youngest behind the Arizona Diamondbacks. That's not a mere "disagreement" - it's a fact that the Diamondbacks are the youngest. If I disputed that editor, the editor would be exempt from the three-revert rule because the article cannot have incorrect information and incorrectly say the Marlins are the youngest World Series winners. But I did what I was supposed to do - check to confirm that the Marlins are the second-youngest behind the Diamondbacks - and by checking the factual information, a conflict was averted. This is also not a matter of mere "disagreement". Whether an actor is main or guest on a television series is a verifiable fact that must be accurately reflected in the article. I made certain to check the opening credits of episodes to confirm that Parker was a guest actor, not a series regular. I checked again after IJBall insisted that he was main and the credits still said he was a guest star. I did not merely state that I was correct, but did the necessary research to prove this change was correct. I pointed to the fact that Parker was billed below another guest actor in the season 2 premiere, demonstrating that contrary to IJBall's assertion that he was promoted to main in season 2, he remained alongside the guest stars in the credits. This was not a matter that needed to go to the talk page when simply watching the opening credits of episodes - which are all easily and legally accessible on the ABC website - would have settled it. IJBall, by his own admission, had simply remembered Parker being in the main cast. Again, I had just checked the credits to confirm he wasn't. You were supposed to have seen for yourself which edit was correct and if you watched the credits, you would have also seen Parker as a guest star. Instead, you jumped to conclusions and restored incorrect information. If the article has incorrect information, then the article must be corrected. Bluerules (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Without even reading all of that, I can see that the problem with your understanding of how Wikipedia works is more extensive than I thought. You stated, "Wikipedia is about accuracy." You need to read WP:Truth. And while that's an essay, the "not truth" aspect, which was a part of policy for a long time, still holds up in various ways. When information is challenged and another editor reverts you, arguing that they are right, that is about disagreement. And you are not free to edit war in such a case. Not unless you have a WP:3RRNO exemption. And even then, you are not exactly free to do that...per that part of the policy I cited. You claimed an exemption when you had none. And now you want to state that "Guidelines are not set in stone" and that they don't have to explicitly state something for one to claim that they state something? What? Plus, credit matters have been interpreted in different ways by various editors for years. Our guidelines have been changed on them more than once, whether for television or film. You stated, "Guidelines are not set in stone." Well, WP:Edit warring is not a guideline. It's a policy. And you repeatedly violated it without a good reason, as if it was some emergency to put in your version. As for "[I was] supposed to have seen for [myself] which edit was correct and if [I] watched the credits, [I] would have also seen Parker as a guest star."? Don't try to shift the blame of your unacceptable behavior. Experienced editors should be very concerned that you think you can edit war left and right as long as you think/argue that you are right. They should be very concerned about you not being able to see why you were wrong to edit war like that. I'm not going to keep replying to you since you apparently just don't get it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Guidelines are not set in stone. My point has simply been that there are exemptions to the three-revert rule and just because it is not a specified exemptions does not discount it as an exemption. Wikipedia is about accuracy and I do not believe any editor would leave information they knew was incorrect on article. They would correct it as soon as they spot it. Another editor being misinformed does not justify retaining blatantly incorrect information for an indeterminate amount of time. For example, I once incorrectly wrote on the Miami Marlins article that they were the youngest expansion franchise to win the World Series. Another editor fixed this to say they were the second-youngest behind the Arizona Diamondbacks. That's not a mere "disagreement" - it's a fact that the Diamondbacks are the youngest. If I disputed that editor, the editor would be exempt from the three-revert rule because the article cannot have incorrect information and incorrectly say the Marlins are the youngest World Series winners. But I did what I was supposed to do - check to confirm that the Marlins are the second-youngest behind the Diamondbacks - and by checking the factual information, a conflict was averted. This is also not a matter of mere "disagreement". Whether an actor is main or guest on a television series is a verifiable fact that must be accurately reflected in the article. I made certain to check the opening credits of episodes to confirm that Parker was a guest actor, not a series regular. I checked again after IJBall insisted that he was main and the credits still said he was a guest star. I did not merely state that I was correct, but did the necessary research to prove this change was correct. I pointed to the fact that Parker was billed below another guest actor in the season 2 premiere, demonstrating that contrary to IJBall's assertion that he was promoted to main in season 2, he remained alongside the guest stars in the credits. This was not a matter that needed to go to the talk page when simply watching the opening credits of episodes - which are all easily and legally accessible on the ABC website - would have settled it. IJBall, by his own admission, had simply remembered Parker being in the main cast. Again, I had just checked the credits to confirm he wasn't. You were supposed to have seen for yourself which edit was correct and if you watched the credits, you would have also seen Parker as a guest star. Instead, you jumped to conclusions and restored incorrect information. If the article has incorrect information, then the article must be corrected. Bluerules (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This latest post of yours reinforces what I mean about your WP:Competence. There is nothing -- nothing at all -- at WP:3RRNO about removing incorrect information immediately. Even in the case of WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO states, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It's not like the case in question is the type of BLP matter that WP:3RRNO is talking about anyway. Except for our BLP policy, there is nothing anywhere about removing incorrect information immediately. And in the case of billing information, that you state that you are correct is not good enough. Your content was disputed by an editor who disagreed with you. You were supposed to talk it out on the talk page...without edit warring/forcing your version in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is not "some false exemption". This was a case of incorrect information that needed to be removed immediately from the article. I understand the issue over editing warring when there isn't a clear answer, but this was a matter where verfiably correct information was being reverted and like I said above, incorrect information cannot be retained on articles. As for the vandalism comment, that was based on the fact that you made a non-edit simply to admonish me in the edit summary. By that point, it did not appear you were acting out of good faith and if you are restoring incorrect information not out of good faith, that is vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I have no doubt that you not understanding our WP:Edit warring policy is why three of your four
blocksblock listings have been about edit warring. Surprisingly, you haven't been blocked in years. But if you keep on this path, that will change. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)- You are completely ignoring the issue here. Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker in both seasons. That is a fact. It is a fact that in every episode he appeared in, his name was listed in the "guest starring" segment of the credits. This is not about viewpoints; this is about clear-cut, verifiable facts. This is truth - truth proven in writing. Once again, IJBall had simply misremembered Parker's cast status on the series. This may have technically been a "disagreement", but it was a disagreement over factual, verifiable information. In this case, the information I added was correct and the information you and IJBall were restoring was incorrect. Correct, factual information must always replace incorrect information on Wikipedia.
- What are you advocating for? Are you saying it's acceptable to include factually incorrect information in an article for an indeterminate amount of time? By your logic, an editor would not be exempt from the three-revert rule if he continually reverted another editor claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden on the 2020 United States presidential election article. By your logic, it would be acceptable for the page to retain incorrect information saying Trump beat Biden until the issue was resolved on the talk page, which could result in the article having incorrect information on it for at least days. The article would misinform people and continue to misinform people. That is why immediately removing blatantly incorrect information is a priority over avoiding an edit war. You keep claiming this is not an exemption from the three-revert rule, but do not specify why. Again, just because it is not specified as an exemption does not mean it would not be considered an exemption. The "good reason" for my edits was to make certain the article was factually correct. If you think I'm exaggerating the need for articles to be factually correct as "some emergency", then you would be fine with having the 2020 election article say Trump beat Biden for an indeterminate amount of time instead of fixing the incorrect information. That is the wrong approach towards incorrect information on Wikipedia, especially when it can mislead people. Incorrect information has to be removed as soon as it is spotted.
- You question my assertion that guidelines are not set in stone, but then acknowledge "guidelines have been changed", which was exactly my point. You can argue semantics, but policy or guideline - they change. You've acknowledged that they've changed. Again, just because the policy doesn't say correcting incorrect information is an exemption doesn't mean it's not an exemption and I am certain that other editors will agree that incorrect information cannot be retained on articles. It is more important for an article to have correct information and not misinform readers than it is to avoid edit warring and retain incorrect information that could mislead people. If other editors concur this should be an exemption, even if it isn't explicitly stated as such, then it is an exemption.
- What you have done is unacceptable. You restored incorrect information over correct information. You didn't look into which information was correct or incorrect, which was easy to do. You simply hit the undo button, reigniting an issue that appeared to be over. You don't even seem to understand what this issue was about. You talk in broad terms, but ignore the specific issue over a guest star being incorrectly identified as main cast. While guidelines have changed, someone who has "guest starring" appear before their name is undeniably a guest star. And you misrepresent what I was trying to accomplish. You would rather insult, vilify me, and bring up matters from almost a decade ago. That is unacceptable behavior on your part.
- I can acknowledge that the matters I was blocked over did not deal with right and wrong issues, at least not at the time (the first edit I was blocked over is now supported by the guidelines and the article now contains it). I don't think/argue that I'm factually right when I'm not factually right. When you actually look at the specific issue, this is a matter of being factually right. It is factually right to say Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker because he was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker. What's concerning is you think it's acceptable for an article to contain factually incorrect information and not have it removed immediately. We are supposed to stop incorrect information, not contribute to it. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, you don't get it. For example, you argued, "By your logic, an editor would not be exempt from the three-revert rule if he continually reverted another editor claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden on the 2020 United States presidential election. By your logic, it would be acceptable for the page to retain incorrect information saying Trump beat Biden until the issue was resolved on the talk page, which could result in the article having incorrect information on it for at least days." Editors should obviously immediately revert in those cases! Immediately reverting in those cases is supported by our WP:BLP policy and WP:3RRNO. Your case is not! As for your past behavior? I was pointing to a pattern of edit warring that continues to this day. It is only a matter of time before you are blocked again for edit warring. You need not be blocked in this case for an admin to set you straight. And if an admin does not, it seemingly won't matter anyway since you are locked into thinking you were right to edit war. I'm not entertaining the rest of what you stated because it sounds like something a newbie would state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- You say you're "not going to keep replying to [me] since [I] apparently just don't get it" and then you reply again. At this point, it seems like you simply wish to argue with me and insult me for reasons I do not understand. You claim my hypothetical scenario is supported by policy and the Legend of the Seeker matter is not, but do not specify why, despite both being the same scenario. Both are matters where incorrect information is restored over correct information and the correct information must be retained. Once again, you completely ignore what this case was about. Once again, it is a verifiable fact that Craig Parker was a guest star throughout the entirety of Legend of the Seeker. You brought up incidents from seven years ago at the earliest to vilify me, while failing to prove this "pattern of edit warring continues to this day" because it hasn't. You haven't cited any recent example of me edit warring because there are none.
- I would at least like to see you acknowledge the issue over Craig Parker being incorrectly identified as a main cast member. I would like to understand your case for keeping factually incorrect information in an article. You are dead set on this notion that it's merely my "viewpoint" that Parker was a guest star, but this is a fact. If you could at least give a reason why this is not a fact, that would be constructive. But again, you would rather use this space to insult me. My edits were removing factually incorrect information in favor of factually correct information - absolutely nothing about viewpoints - and if you do not believe that is acceptable, then that's something I don't understand. Bluerules (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, you don't get it. For example, you argued, "By your logic, an editor would not be exempt from the three-revert rule if he continually reverted another editor claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden on the 2020 United States presidential election. By your logic, it would be acceptable for the page to retain incorrect information saying Trump beat Biden until the issue was resolved on the talk page, which could result in the article having incorrect information on it for at least days." Editors should obviously immediately revert in those cases! Immediately reverting in those cases is supported by our WP:BLP policy and WP:3RRNO. Your case is not! As for your past behavior? I was pointing to a pattern of edit warring that continues to this day. It is only a matter of time before you are blocked again for edit warring. You need not be blocked in this case for an admin to set you straight. And if an admin does not, it seemingly won't matter anyway since you are locked into thinking you were right to edit war. I'm not entertaining the rest of what you stated because it sounds like something a newbie would state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I have no doubt that you not understanding our WP:Edit warring policy is why three of your four
- Result: Neither party broke 3RR. But both User:Bluerules and User:Flyer22 Frozen are warned for edit warring. The next time one of you reverts at Legend of the Seeker you are risking a block unless you have first obtained consensus for your change on the article talk page. Bluerules' use of the term vandalism is incorrect and this had better not continue. Misuse is blockable, and this may be your only warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:SquidHomme reported by User:Admanny (Result: )
Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SquidHomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [122]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments: Page is under 1RR discretionary sanction [126] and consensus required. User has given bogus reasons for reverts such as "CNN/Fox is fake news" In addition, user has previously broke 1RR but this went unreported:
I am merely enforcing consensus within the article to wait till all sources call a state before listing it on the page, per WP:CRP. Admanny (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT, I see nothing wrong here. This Admanny guy just cannot bear the loss of his dear candidate.—SquidHomme (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting enough when you broke 1RR twice, one when you added votes to Trump and one when you added votes to Biden. I'm clearly not siding with anyone, lest to say you called CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as well. We follow a strict consensus where a handful of sources must call a state for it to appear in the infobox, and you are clearly not adhering to that. Also, would you really want to use IAR and FATRAT on a discretionary-sanctioned article? Admanny (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am improving the article by updating with what information I got my hands on, And when someone like you come to be an obstacle for the improvement of the article, I believe I must resort to WP:IAR as I am improving it, not vandalize it. Secondly, I wasn't aware of the consensus at the time nor the unusual 1RR instead of 3RR. Also, what's the problem with me calling CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as you appear to care more for these words when it's my personal opinion and shouldn't be of your concern as I'm not adding any of those phrase into the article. I say you should respect another's personal view.—SquidHomme (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Secondly, there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. Lastly, your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. Admanny (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus.
Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it?there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that.
I also doubt you missed that when you reverted my edits and another user's edits more than once.your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased.
It might be biased for you (I can see from all the hatred you've directed toward me), but not for others.—SquidHomme (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it?
The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the [129] ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. Admanny (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the [130] ongoing discussion instead of lashing out.
I believe you're bright enough to notice that my edits precedes this discussion, right?—SquidHomme (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- Actually the discussion started 4 and a half hours before your edits, and yes, thank you, I am bright enough. Admanny (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- And what? Is there any consensus I should follow? My edits precedes this discussion as there are no binding consensus produced as of yet regarding the inclusion of Georgia. Also, what's the point of a new discussion if there's a consensus in regard to how many "major networks" calling needed for a state to be included. And yeah, of course you're bright enough, boy. I agree :) —SquidHomme (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The inclusion of Georgia, or any state for that matter, is based on a consensus of major networks and news sites that are pre-determined before election night. That's the consensus. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Admanny (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure what's your point by suggesting me joining the discussion when there's already a consensus regarding it. Is there a change in the consensus? Is the recent discussions about Georgia changes the consensus? Talk about your wit here.—SquidHomme (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think I mentioned it pretty clearly already. Your edits are 1. Outside consensus, 2. Breaks 1RR and 3. are edit-warring, since you don't bother the talk page discussion. A handful of shenanigans if you ask me. Admanny (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Your edits are 1. Outside consensus
How many times should I say this for you to understand: I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. In regards of 1RR, don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too.you don't bother the talk page discussion
Tell me, what's the use for me to join the talk page discussion if there's already a consensus? Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? As far as I know, I reverted your edits, not actively editing it. I'm sure you're bright enough to tell the difference.—SquidHomme (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live.
Good, that admits you missed the big banner on top of the editing page. Block worthy for that.don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too.
Allowed per WP:CRP, just making sure consensus is followed.Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring?
Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. WP:BRD cycle. Admanny (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- You seem too focused to get me blocked rather than improving the article. It figures. And it also appears that you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT completely that in order to improve the article, some rules cannot be followed due to it being a drawback that keeps the article from being updated as soon as possible. I'm not stating that I don't respect the consensus on this page, but it prevents the article on getting new, updated numbers. Not because of questionable sources, in fact the sources are legit and verified. And the consensus itself didn't specify and list which major media outlets qualified to be the caller. My question is this: Is Newsmax, or OANN qualify as a 'major media outlet?'
Block worthy for that.
Ah yes, you ARE the judge, jury and executioner. Why bother bring me into this discussion, judge?Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't.
What word should I say, when the discussion is CLOSED because of the CONSENSUS has been reached? If there's an open discussion that will change the consensus once again, of course I'll take part in. So stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- You're welcome to participate at [131], so it's quite obvious discussion is not closed. You decided it's closed by not participating and rather reverting. Strange... Admanny (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- How come there's a CONSENSUS when the discussion is *obviously* NOT EVEN CLOSED??? Can you elaborate?—SquidHomme (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Prior consensus is decided. Discussion is underway to change that consensus. Please don't be dumb. Admanny (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't be dumb.
Oh no, I don't need to be you. I was talking about the consensus before this one, not this one. Not even a straw poll or voting exists in this one, just comments over comments.—SquidHomme (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- Then pitch in to that one? That discussion is way old now, I'm doing you a favor by redirecting you to the current one. The fact you're blatantly refusing to even participate is astounding. Admanny (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
blatantly refusing to even participate
? Which part of this discussion shows that I "blatantly refusing?" As I said, stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- Any experienced editor knows the WP:BRD cycle pretty well. You're not discussing even after I invited you multiple times to, so I'd like to repeat myself, blatantly refusing to participate. Admanny (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find it funny, with your obsession to the word
blatantly refusing to participate
without even be able to point which of my word says that I'm blatantly refusing to participate in that discussion. Think about your wit here.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- I find it funny, that it took you so long to finally participate. What made you crack, if I can ask? Admanny (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I participated LONG before your false accusation of me beingblatantly refusing to participate. Making me question your knowledge of WP:CIV.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Considering I see very little evidence of you participating in any discussion after going through the talk page's archives, I consider that highly unlikely. [132] Admanny (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh thanks, but I don't need fans to stalk me right now.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Considering I see very little evidence of you participating in any discussion after going through the talk page's archives, I consider that highly unlikely. [132] Admanny (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I participated LONG before your false accusation of me beingblatantly refusing to participate. Making me question your knowledge of WP:CIV.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find it funny, that it took you so long to finally participate. What made you crack, if I can ask? Admanny (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find it funny, with your obsession to the word
- Any experienced editor knows the WP:BRD cycle pretty well. You're not discussing even after I invited you multiple times to, so I'd like to repeat myself, blatantly refusing to participate. Admanny (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Then pitch in to that one? That discussion is way old now, I'm doing you a favor by redirecting you to the current one. The fact you're blatantly refusing to even participate is astounding. Admanny (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Prior consensus is decided. Discussion is underway to change that consensus. Please don't be dumb. Admanny (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- How come there's a CONSENSUS when the discussion is *obviously* NOT EVEN CLOSED??? Can you elaborate?—SquidHomme (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome to participate at [131], so it's quite obvious discussion is not closed. You decided it's closed by not participating and rather reverting. Strange... Admanny (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- You seem too focused to get me blocked rather than improving the article. It figures. And it also appears that you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT completely that in order to improve the article, some rules cannot be followed due to it being a drawback that keeps the article from being updated as soon as possible. I'm not stating that I don't respect the consensus on this page, but it prevents the article on getting new, updated numbers. Not because of questionable sources, in fact the sources are legit and verified. And the consensus itself didn't specify and list which major media outlets qualified to be the caller. My question is this: Is Newsmax, or OANN qualify as a 'major media outlet?'
- I think I mentioned it pretty clearly already. Your edits are 1. Outside consensus, 2. Breaks 1RR and 3. are edit-warring, since you don't bother the talk page discussion. A handful of shenanigans if you ask me. Admanny (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure what's your point by suggesting me joining the discussion when there's already a consensus regarding it. Is there a change in the consensus? Is the recent discussions about Georgia changes the consensus? Talk about your wit here.—SquidHomme (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The inclusion of Georgia, or any state for that matter, is based on a consensus of major networks and news sites that are pre-determined before election night. That's the consensus. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Admanny (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- And what? Is there any consensus I should follow? My edits precedes this discussion as there are no binding consensus produced as of yet regarding the inclusion of Georgia. Also, what's the point of a new discussion if there's a consensus in regard to how many "major networks" calling needed for a state to be included. And yeah, of course you're bright enough, boy. I agree :) —SquidHomme (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Actually the discussion started 4 and a half hours before your edits, and yes, thank you, I am bright enough. Admanny (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Secondly, there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. Lastly, your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. Admanny (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am improving the article by updating with what information I got my hands on, And when someone like you come to be an obstacle for the improvement of the article, I believe I must resort to WP:IAR as I am improving it, not vandalize it. Secondly, I wasn't aware of the consensus at the time nor the unusual 1RR instead of 3RR. Also, what's the problem with me calling CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as you appear to care more for these words when it's my personal opinion and shouldn't be of your concern as I'm not adding any of those phrase into the article. I say you should respect another's personal view.—SquidHomme (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting enough when you broke 1RR twice, one when you added votes to Trump and one when you added votes to Biden. I'm clearly not siding with anyone, lest to say you called CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as well. We follow a strict consensus where a handful of sources must call a state for it to appear in the infobox, and you are clearly not adhering to that. Also, would you really want to use IAR and FATRAT on a discretionary-sanctioned article? Admanny (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Prcc27 can add additional details regarding the current consensus if required. Additionally, user has pointlessly counter-filed a report against me, when clearly both filer and reported user would be investigated with this report anyway. Admanny (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was pinged to this discussion, so I'm not really sure if my comment here will mean much per WP:CANVASS.. Although, FWIW, I saw this discussion in my watchlist before I even noticed it was in my notifications. If anyone's curious about the consensus, please see the talk (especially the RFC at the top of the page). Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Admanny reported by User:SquidHomme(Result: )
Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Admanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [133]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments: In doing what he called "enforcing consensus within the article," this user has also breaking the rule itself by reverting it more than 2 times. Discretionary sanction applied to all editors who edit 2020 United States presidential election stated that an editor must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. This user User:Admanny clearly violates the rules knowingly by reverting the article three times within 24 hours period, using the phrase "enforcing consensus within the article," as an excuse to justify the reverts.—SquidHomme (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can I point out something here? WP:BRD's example states clearly that if someone makes a change and gets reverted, they should take it to the talk page. In every scenario, with a consensus that needs to be followed, I'm the "Editor 1". There's absolutely no reason why you need to accuse me of making up an excuse. It's pretty clear you're just trying to rat me out now. Admanny (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's all I can say.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Also, I don't know what made this user exempt to the rules but this user has tendencies to "own" the article, which violates WP:OWN as evident in some (if not all) of this user's edits in the 2020 United States presidential election article. Which made me think that this user's argumentation regarding WP:BRD is just to justify their "ownership" of the article.—SquidHomme (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's all I can say.—SquidHomme (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: Article has the following restrictions: 1RR and Consensus required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: Extraneous report of above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Hanoi Road reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Blocked)
Page: Ernest Shackleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanoi Road (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [137]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144][145]
Comments:
Consensus and sources clearly against the editor in question. Talk participation has been reams of aspersions and original research, but very little actual engagement. Edit summaries in the reverts are undermined by the talk participation, where Hanoi Road acknowledges neither having consensus nor their preferred version having been a longstanding one. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- [146] It's worth noting that this user's entire editing history on this article is pretty much the same, edit warring to insert a change against consensus and that contradicts the academic consensus in sources. From the comments in talk it's clear they have a strong view on Irish nationalism, which appears to be clouding their judgement. WCMemail 01:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reverts continue despite the editor having acknowledged the filing here by responding (in a fairly ridiculous manner) on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Plus this insanity. There are obviously serious behavioral issues beyond just failure to observe 3RR. Grandpallama (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 2 weeks. Nationalist edit warring about the Irishness of Shackleton. A perennial dispute. Wouldn't it be great if people could follow consensus? This user was previously blocked for edit warring on the same article. They were also blocked 72 hours on October 30. Any admin may unblock if they think the person will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:WikiCorrection0283 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )
Page: List of massacres in Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiCorrection0283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [147]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Long lasting edit warring with other users, making a big change before making a consensus on the talk page. Plus the user looks suspicious as it is a single purpose account. Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I have now left a message for Beshogur, I am new to Wiki and wasn't aware of the talk page process, I have now left my comments on the article talk page, as well as a new reference. I won't make any further edits, I'll leave it to the experienced editors who I assume will take my talk page comments and new reference into account. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Also I'd add that, if you follow the whole page history, the changes I initially introduced were gradual and supported by other editors, but then a mass reversion occurred by another editor, and this was repeated. That editor only recently went to the talk page - so surely the other editor should have gone to the talk page in the first place instead of massively deleting content that was gradually added (see relevant article edit history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) WikiCorrection0283 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing my request. User did revert his edit. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Lelekas reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: )
Page: 2020 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lelekas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988516132 by Tvx1 (talk)"
- 17:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The guy who inserted the graphic had a reason. You have not a reson to delete this. All you show is that you do not know what WRC is."
- 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "We used the same graphic in the 2019 season. I cannot understand your problem about this."
- 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC) "It is a useful graphic, why we have to delete it?"
Two more reverts, with similar reasoning, by possibly the same editor editing while logged out:
- 15:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Not sensible deletion of the graphic showing the points progression. Check the 2019 season, there is also such a graphic there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_World_Rally_Championship"
- 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2020 World Rally Championship."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 17:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Points progression */ reply"
Comments: This user has been edit-warring against the removal of a graph from this article for over two weeks. Talk page discussion shows a preference to remove the graph. The user has refused to participate in the discussion, despite having been repeatedly requested to do so. They only revert on sight and are utterly unwilling to allow removal on the false pretense that content cannot be removed merely "because someone included it".Tvx1 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: )
Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [156]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]
Comments:
This is an article that is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War theme (1RR). The user reported here has a long history of edit-warring, and there is another case open against them in the noticeboard. This user has an extremist nationalistic POV they are trying to push in many articles, as witnessed in the other complaint. Look at their revert history and edit warring behavior that warranted many warnings and complaints by several users on their Talk page and related articles Talk pages. This user is not here to contribute positively,, but to push their POV through wherever they can. Thank you for your attention. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Mariah200 reported by User:Blablubbs (Result: )
Page: Pritika Swarup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mariah200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Please, this has been settled. It's never a copyvio. You can initiate AFD if you desire"
- 17:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988678034 by Blablubbs (talk) Already settled before now. Not a copyvio of this https://www.imgmodels.com/pritikaswarup"
- 15:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "tag clearly states "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. You can take it too AFD if you want"
- 15:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "declining the speedy having addressed the issues"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RW 16)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeated speedy tag blanking. FWIW, the page is still a copyright violation. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this notice. I am sorry for my actions. Trying to understand what's going on. It seems I got it all wrong. I was only trying to fix the issues. I also believe that "Speedy del" tag can be removed by any editor after dealing with the issues raised. I am so sorry. It wasn't intentional. I only tried to work on the page since the topic meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Pls forgive me. Mariah200 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have a hard time believing the intentionality part; you were explicitly warned to stop edit warring in an edit summary, on your talk page – a message you responded to (and hence acknowledged) immediately before you blanked the tag again. And with all your reverts, the page still contained close paraphrasing and direct copying from the source page, something which you failed to acknowledge. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this notice. I am sorry for my actions. Trying to understand what's going on. It seems I got it all wrong. I was only trying to fix the issues. I also believe that "Speedy del" tag can be removed by any editor after dealing with the issues raised. I am so sorry. It wasn't intentional. I only tried to work on the page since the topic meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Pls forgive me. Mariah200 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User: Ronaldo3401 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: )
Page: Chapter Two: The Weirdo on Maple Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronaldo3401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [161]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]
Comments:
Repeated reinstatement of episode articles contrary to existing consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers), at this article and at Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers; despite notes on article and user talk page. Also some possible/likely sockpuppeteering (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvrix3108), currently at the "my brother did it" stage (User_talk:JalenFolf#Sockpuppet).-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B reported by User:YborCityJohn (Result: Blocked)
Page: Google Domains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B (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:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Changing domains.google to domains.google.com.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Put a warning on their talk page.
Comments:
Not only are they being disruptive with their edits, violating the 3RR and they are aggressive towards other Wikipedian i.e. myself using words like SCREW U A-HOLE etc. I have refrained from making another revert as it may put me in violation of the 3RR rule. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Bringlights reported by User:4thfile4thrank (Result: Indef)
Page: Islamic Defenders Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bringlights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Using word that may introduce bias - Puffery: "Great""
- 18:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Previous writing was not in accordance with the source from TRAC. It is possible that the previous writing was intended to be misleading. And I have reported some users."
- 17:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Previous writing was not in accordance with the source from TRAC. It is possible that the previous writing was intended to be misleading."
- 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988633132 by 182.1.228.34 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Islamic Defenders Front."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:4thfile4thrank#Baseless_Accusation Comments:
I attempted to discuss it after one revert cycle, but he started sending frivolous reports of vandalism to everyone who reverted him, continued reverting further, and then frivolously reported Iridescent for vandalism after the user warned him for edit warring. I am thinking about WP:NOTHERE. I discussed it at the bottom of my talk page, but he then frivolously reported me for vandalism. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 20:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely as pretty much every edit is disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)