Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 9 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive349) (bot |
No edit summary |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
:And you may want to note that your reversion was of at least two other editors who reverted you ''besides'' MarnetteD. You will need to show whether and how they edit-warred as well to succeed with this strategy. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
:And you may want to note that your reversion was of at least two other editors who reverted you ''besides'' MarnetteD. You will need to show whether and how they edit-warred as well to succeed with this strategy. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|m}}. You need to show differences and what page you are talking about. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 22:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
:{{AN3|m}}. You need to show differences and what page you are talking about. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 22:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kautilya3]] reported by [[User:解放的高加索]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinK|2017 China–India border standoff}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kautilya3}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [diff preferred, link permitted] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# {diff2|798642339} |
|||
# {diff2|798650510} |
|||
# {diff2|798209015} |
|||
# {diff2|798053257} |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' [link] |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [diff] |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> This guy stops all attmpts that post Chinese opinions about the end of the standoff, while calling it "Stop propaganda", ignoring that he is posting all the "information" sourced from Indian media.[[User:解放的高加索|解放的高加索]] ([[User talk:解放的高加索|talk]]) 03:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:35, 3 September 2017
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
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:Leoni98 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Dwayne Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Leoni98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- 06:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) "Dual citizen, Canadian father, lived in Canada in the mid 1990s."
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC) "Rv vandalism. "Evidence" would be, er, the supporting reference."
- 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC) "Um, yes: cite 7. Please stop trying to save face by vandalising. You screwed up, as we all do from time to time. Move on."
- 01:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 798286287 by 4TheWynne (talk) Per cite 7, Johnson holds Canadian citizenship."
- 00:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC) "Johnson has dual Canadian/American citizenship, has a Canadian father, and briefly lived in Canada in the mid 1990s."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dwayne Johnson. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The "evidence" referred to by the editor, "20 Surprising Facts About Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson" at hollywood.com (not known to be a sterling source of reliable biographical data), and based on which they are changing his citizenship to "Canadian American", says that Johnson is Canadian because "The Rock wasn’t born in Canada, but a change to the country’s nationality policy in 2009 made him a Canadian citizen, since his father was one." The editor has been asked repeatedly to discuss this on the article's Talk page, where this issue has been previously discussed (Johnson may be eligible to claim, but no evidence has been presented that he has claimed, dual citizenship). Editor refuses to discuss, removes warnings from Talk page as "harassment" and accuses reverting editors of vandalism, has now exceeded 3RR. General Ization Talk 02:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted THREE times in 24 hours (four would be a 3RR vio). As for the content, I added a detail that is unequivocally, indisputably supported by a reference (cite 7, to be precise), but I have been met with a wall of WP:OWN and WP:JDLI. Sometimes ego and face-saving comes before the betterment of Wikipedia, and this is one of those times. I'm over it: do what you like. Leoni98 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That ("cite 7") would be the citation linked above, correct? I have already explained why your edit based on that source is problematic. And you apparently have not read, or have not understood, WP:EW, despite multiple warnings. You are not permitted to edit war "even if you are sure you are right," and you do not need to revert four times to have engaged in an edit war. General Ization Talk 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The ref clearly states, "He's a Canadian citizen". I say this merely to clarify your agenda, not because I have any further interest in the content of the article. I haven't violated 3RR and am not "edit warring" as I have no intention of making any further edits to Dwayne Johnson. Leoni98 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are not "clarifying my agenda" (I have none, and I did not arrive on the scene until the war was already underway), and whether or not you edit the article yet again, this issue will be addressed here. General Ization Talk 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You keep stressing "war", on top of lying about a 3RR vio and using select content from the cite in question, so I'd say it's safe to say you have an agenda. I'm just defending myself against bollocks now. I couldn't give a flying about the article so there's hardly a "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your refusal to acknowledge that you have violated Wikipedia policy means that you are very likely to do so again with regard to other articles. General Ization Talk 02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nice attempt at rigging. Only hours ago I was thanked for an edit to Radiohead, so spare me the "he's-a-problem-editor!" nonsense. I have patently not violated 3RR, and EW is a hazy and subjective policy. I tried three times to clarify my point, then walked away. Again, there is no "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did not say that you are incapable of constructive editing; I said that your failure to understand why your editing behavior at this article is not constructive means that the issue must be addressed, whether or not you care to edit it again. General Ization Talk 02:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I'll leave it to the admins here to determine whether you violated the "hazy and subjective" policy that is the subject of this noticeboard. General Ization Talk 03:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nice attempt at rigging. Only hours ago I was thanked for an edit to Radiohead, so spare me the "he's-a-problem-editor!" nonsense. I have patently not violated 3RR, and EW is a hazy and subjective policy. I tried three times to clarify my point, then walked away. Again, there is no "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your refusal to acknowledge that you have violated Wikipedia policy means that you are very likely to do so again with regard to other articles. General Ization Talk 02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You keep stressing "war", on top of lying about a 3RR vio and using select content from the cite in question, so I'd say it's safe to say you have an agenda. I'm just defending myself against bollocks now. I couldn't give a flying about the article so there's hardly a "war". Leoni98 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are not "clarifying my agenda" (I have none, and I did not arrive on the scene until the war was already underway), and whether or not you edit the article yet again, this issue will be addressed here. General Ization Talk 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The ref clearly states, "He's a Canadian citizen". I say this merely to clarify your agenda, not because I have any further interest in the content of the article. I haven't violated 3RR and am not "edit warring" as I have no intention of making any further edits to Dwayne Johnson. Leoni98 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- That ("cite 7") would be the citation linked above, correct? I have already explained why your edit based on that source is problematic. And you apparently have not read, or have not understood, WP:EW, despite multiple warnings. You are not permitted to edit war "even if you are sure you are right," and you do not need to revert four times to have engaged in an edit war. General Ization Talk 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So my editing was unconstructive because you disagreed with it? Neat. We're going around in circles, but I'll take the opportunity to reiterate that I mentioned Johnson being Canadian on the grounds that a reference clearly states that he is a Canadian citizen. Owing to my respect for Wikipedia policy (which you like to paint me as having an issue with), I backed away before 3RR became a factor, and then dropped the stick. No "war" took place, and I hardly have a "behavior" problem. Leoni98 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Whatever" suggests a behaviour problem. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, maybe if you stopped telling everyone else that they're wrong and actually started doing what we asked, then things might not have got to that point. You didn't add a reliable source (in this case, you probably need more than one) stating that he is Canadian, so it was unreferenced; nationality is a controversial topic on Wikipedia, and because of the nature of your edit and the arguments that you brought, it was controversial. Rather than fight a losing battle here, you have a chance to go to the article talk page and discuss the matter like I asked, but if you choose not to, you need to drop the issue if you want to avoid getting blocked. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The issue here is not your original edit (the one on 17 August) in which you made the claim in reliance on the source you mentioned. The issue is your response once that edit was challenged and reverted by another editor, and you were informed that there was a problem in making the edit you made based on that source. Your response was not to discuss it with the reverting editor, but to make the exact same change yet again, not once but four times over a span of less than two hours, each time removing the warnings placed on your Talk page claiming "harassment", accusing other editors of "vandalism" for reverting you, and failing to discuss the matter outside of the edit summary. If that's not the definition of edit warring, I don't know what is. The final straw was this edit, in which you responded with "Rm harassment: WP:EW and WP:3RR do not apply to reverts of vandalism" to my EW warning. General Ization Talk 04:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You've worked hard with your rigging and attempts to paint me as an unconstructive editor. Bravo. After your tireless efforts, you deserve to see me blocked as a reward. I'll dip back into real life for a bit, while you hammer away with your unpaid, agenda-driven policing. Ta. Leoni98 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- No need to "rig" or "paint" anything. The history is there for all to review, and you offer no alternative explanation or justification for your behavior. Your refusal to acknowledge it, and your continuing attacks on me as the reporter, should at least double any block you would otherwise have received. Perhaps that will give you some time to review WP:BATTLEGROUND. General Ization Talk 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You've worked hard with your rigging and attempts to paint me as an unconstructive editor. Bravo. After your tireless efforts, you deserve to see me blocked as a reward. I'll dip back into real life for a bit, while you hammer away with your unpaid, agenda-driven policing. Ta. Leoni98 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation on 1 September. The reported user has asserted that the other parties are committing vandalism, which is not correct. It is a plain old content dispute. The proposed change needs to find consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
IP user reported by User:Nardog (Result: Semi)
Page: Mid-Atlantic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 2603:3021:2C01:E900:502F:7F16:F1C3:AAB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2601:5CA:C303:AD64:81DF:63C0:6909:CBBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2603:3021:2C01:E900:7052:F99:B1D4:1FAB (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:
- 13:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...AAB6
- 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...CBBA
- 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...CBBA
- 16:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...1FAB
- 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by ...1FAB
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2601:5CA:C303:AD64:81DF:63C0:6909:CBBA
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) by Dlthewave
Comments:
Highly likely to be sockpuppets of Futurearchitect91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Other suspected sockpuppets include 2601:5CA:C303:AD64:8D7:97B0:15BF:B36D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2601:5CA:C303:AD64:F006:9BE2:8D:C34F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all from Comcast. Nardog (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Fan4Life reported by User:U990467 (Result: No action, per agreement)
- Page
- Dangerous Woman Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The editor continues to revert edits by multiple users without any Wikipedia guideline, even after being warned on the article talk page. The user didn't give any valid reason on the final discussion, either. It's not a big problem if the editor was new to Wikipedia. However, Fan4Life has the block log for starting edit wars at least five times. It's kind serious if the user continues such bad behavior. --U990467 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Fan4Life was blocked two weeks on August 10 for edit warring, so if there is a new block this time around the normal escalation would be one month. I hope they will respond to this complaint and agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was trying to stimulate discussion by being WP:BOLD. The discussion is being ignored by other users even though there is no consensus. I was trying to do everything I could to advance discussion as the users in support of the change are not engaging in discussion, even though consensus has not been reached. I won't do this again and I will wait for consensus, but there is a problem with users making changes without discussing them and then not engaging in discussion once one has been started. Fan4Life (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Result: No action, per Fan4Life's agreement to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I know this has already been resolved, but I wrote out this whole paragraph beforehand (it was caught in an edit conflict with EdJohnston) and wanted to get this on the record, so-to-speak. I am not involved in this dispute, but want to note that in my observation of this user, s/he does not understand what WP:Consensus means, despite other users trying to explain the policy to him/her. The user previously edit warred at the main Ariana Grande article over a formatting issue despite a half dozen other users disagreeing with him/her. Despite this, they continued to argue that there was no consensus as long as one user held out [1] [2]. The user continues to press the issue. Similarly, at Ariana Grande discography, the user continues to revert over the objections of several other users despite being the lone holdout, with the rationale essentially being that s/he had the last word in about the dispute on the talk page (despite previous recent opposition from others). As for Fan4Life's argument that other users are ignoring discussions after s/he starts them, that has no merit at all. In most of this user's edit disputes, conversations were already there and ongoing, and I think the opposing users just tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over again). In sum, I can completely understand why this user's behavior is frustrating other users. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Ans reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: Blocked)
Page: Template:Infobox OS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [3]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
Comments:
The user is engaged in edit warring in the Template namespace. He has made a damaging and careless contribution which three editors have so far reverted, but he continues to reinstate the contribution without making the slightest effort to understand and fix the problem. Moreover, this is the Template namespace: Editors are expected to only make edits that are well thought and tested; reversions born from stubbornness or reflex is critically dangerous.
I must add that I am a little uncomfortable as to how the communication broke down during my absence. Still, it can be clearly seen the that problem is communicated up to the stage that the burden of verifying the problem was on Ans. Moreover, widely used templates with one thousands and three transclusions is no place to punish your fellow unsociable editors by edit warring with them. (And let's face it: What was the last time that an edit war occurred while the communications had not failed?)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Result: 24 hours. You shouldn't be edit warring on a template with 1000 transclusions, even if you are sure you are right. The same user was also warring on the IOS article. The reported user has claimed that the reverts of his edits are vandalism, but this is not so; it is a regular content dispute. The discussion at the user's talk page gives us no reason to think they will wait for consensus in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Mediatech492 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Talk:Mel Blanc (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mediatech492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NewEnglandYankee (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
- 22:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Sro23 (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
- 22:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MarnetteD (talk) to last revision by Mediatech492. (TW)"
- 22:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 798609719 by MarnetteD (talk)WP:NOTFORUM, not constructive"
- 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Still not constructive"
- 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 798380286 by Beyond My Ken (talk)Unconstructive"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- 22:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ""
- 22:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Don't ... */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor persists in removing a valid and constructive comment (a request that another editor sign their Talk page edits) from this Talk page, despite request by multiple other editors that they refrain from doing so. Now at 6RR. General Ization Talk 22:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- The signature that was unintentionally omitted at first was subsequently added. The comment, and the subsequent harassment that has followed serves no WP valid purpose. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- The signature was added by @Beyond My Ken using {{subst:unsigned}}, not by the editor who was being asked to sign their edits. Please explain how the single, original request made by BMK, which you repeatedly reverted, constituted "harassment." General Ization Talk 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
User:MarnetteD reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: Declined)
- Page
- Page-multi error: no page detected.
- User being reported
- MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Was recently corrected by me on another article, and has since been engaging in edit wars with me Mediatech492 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Along with this report being malformed you are going to need to provide some evidence of edit warring. You will also want to read WP:BOOMERANG at this point. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- And you may want to note that your reversion was of at least two other editors who reverted you besides MarnetteD. You will need to show whether and how they edit-warred as well to succeed with this strategy. General Ization Talk 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.. You need to show differences and what page you are talking about. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
User:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kautilya3 reported by User:解放的高加索 (Result: )
Page: Template:PagelinK
User being reported: Kautilya3 (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:
- {diff2|798642339}
- {diff2|798650510}
- {diff2|798209015}
- {diff2|798053257}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This guy stops all attmpts that post Chinese opinions about the end of the standoff, while calling it "Stop propaganda", ignoring that he is posting all the "information" sourced from Indian media.解放的高加索 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)