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:Ec1801011 reported by User:Ritchie92 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Identity and Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ec1801011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904683242 by Ritchie92 (talk) I shall keep reverting until you stop your disruptive edits"
- 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904674685 by Ritchie92 (talk) I shall keep reverting until you stop your disruptive edits."
- 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904667275 by Ritchie92 (talk) You are right a consensus should be reached, so don't remove information until that consensus is reached."
- 17:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904664994 by Ritchie92 (talk) Reverting the edits of a disruptive user who refuses to stop edit warring."
- 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "Added back information removed by disruptive editor who continues to engage in edit warring."
- 16:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904491928 by Ritchie92 (talk) Have provided amble reasoning for the inclusion and yet this user has continued to edit war."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on Identity and Democracy */ new section"
- 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on Identity and Democracy */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 16:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC) "/* PVV seat */"
- 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) "/* PVV seat */"
- Comments:
I reverted first an edit by the user which I did not think was proper. Then he started reverting back without engaging in discussion (I started the discussion in the talk page to no reply). At some point he replied but kept reverting without following the discussion. Ritchie92 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours, due to continuation of the war on 5 July, subsequent to the diffs listed above. I made an effort at persuasion at User talk:Ec1801011#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion but this went nowhere. Either the user doesn't understand the edit warring policy, or doesn't wish to follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
User:2605:6000:1022:2A4:98FB:3D24:5B18:41F1 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Frankenweenie (1984 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2605:6000:1022:2A4:98FB:3D24:5B18:41F1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Plot */Take That, You Mean Old FilmandTVFan28!"
- 05:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fuck You, FilmandTVFan28!"
- 05:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "How This?"
- Consecutive edits made from 05:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) to 05:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- 05:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "How Is?"
- 05:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Plot */What Do You Think, New One?"
- 04:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC) to 03:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- 03:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC) ""
- 03:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 03:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on For Pete's Sake (film). (TW)"
User:Mian Ahmad Sulaiman reported by User:Wugapodes (Result: Indeffed)
- Page
- Wikipedia talk:Project namespace (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mian Ahmad Sulaiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 05:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Family */"
- 05:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Family */ new section"
- 05:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Born */ new section"
- 05:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Father Name */ new section"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Comments:
User keeps reinserting WP:NOTFORUM material on the talk page after two warnings from Dr.K. and is way over 3RR Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 reported by User:178.239.161.219 (Result: Declined)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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: User keeps editing against consensus and has violated the 3RR they been warned about violating the 3RR in the past as seen on there talk page. 178.239.161.219 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
|
User:StutzTCB reported by User:TropicAces (Result: Warned)
- Page
- The Dirt (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- StutzTCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ no sock; revert TropicArcres article ownership vandalism"
- 23:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ undid continued article vandalism by Tropic Acres"
- 21:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ This matter has been settled at the article talk page to INCLUDE the Audience Score. When you see "Verified" it means Rotten Tomatoes confirmed a user bought a ticket to the movie"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
“Discussed” (in loosest of terms) on my Talk page but to no avail; not going to revert him a third time and risk getting flagged myself TropicAces (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User TropicAcres has engaged in an edit war at The Dirt (Film) page making 15 (FIFTEEN) destructive edits to the article AFTER a talk page discussion decided to INCLUDE the COMPLETE Rotten Tomatoes review INCLUSIVE with the VERIFIED purchased tickets Audience Score. However, user TropicAcrea has assumed article ownership and is guilty of Edit Warring himself in his biased attempt to deliberately EXCLUDE the favorable audience review which he now falsely claims is “unsourced”. The source is cited as Rotten Tomatoes website for this film. Check the link: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dirt_2019
We (Rotten Tomatoes) now have Verified Ratings and Reviews to make our Audience Score more useful When you see "Verified" it means we've confirmed a user bought a ticket to the movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Warned. StutzTCB, what do you mean by we (Rotten Tomatoes)? Are you affiliated with the site? Anyway, please do not edit war, aiming instead at trying to reach consensus on the article talk page. El_C 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Borsoka reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: protected)
- Page
- Eastern Romance languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Borsoka (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 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) to 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "OR (as per Talk page)"
- 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "-box"
- 08:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904798608 by Rgvis (talk) I do not need to ask them again. See the Talk page."
- 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) "If one wants to read the results of more than a decade-long OR, they can read it in the article's history."
- 09:48, July 4, 2019 (UTC), Undid revision 904752483 by Rgvis (talk) ??? Did you address the problems?
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Both users involved have engaged in discussion on talk page, but have continued to revert each other regardless. Polyamorph (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comments:
Response to 3RR warning and continued reversion after warning suggests this editor will continue this disruptive pattern of revert warring Polyamorph (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- (1) I did not ignore WP:3RR. (2) The template message on the top of the article has contained the following warning since June 2009 ([3]): "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Actually, 99% of the article's text contained OR. (3) I deleted the 99% of the text and asked for the verification of the title of the article ([4]). Furthermore, I placed the following message on the article's Talk page ([5]): "What is the source of this article? Which book contains information about the Eastern Romance languages?". (4) Rgvis restored the content without addressing my concerns. ([6]) (5) I reverted his edit, asking him in the edit summary to address the problems. ([7]) (6) Rgvis reverted my edit ([8]). (7) I transformed the article into a redirect page ([9]). Please remember that the possibily of the deletion of the whole article had been mentioned at top of the article for more than 10 years and I had asked for the verification of the article's title more than one month before the deletion (both with template messages and on the article's Talk page). (8) Rgvis undid my edit ([10]), and (9) I reverted his edit, again drawing his attention to the Talk page debate ([11]). I also placed a message on his Talk page, asking him to read the discussion on the Talk page and do not restore an article without verifying its content. I also reminded him WP:3RR ([12]). (10) Rgvis reverted my edit, saying that he wants to protect the content of the article. ([13]) (11) I restored the short version of the article, asking for verification. ([14]). (12) In the meantime, Polyamorph placed a warning on my Talk page and he also marked the article as reviewed. (Please, remember, that 99% of the text of the article could be deleted any time and this has been known for more than 10 years. Please also remember, that a template message and a Talk page discussion shows that the very subject of the article needs verification. However, Polyamorph ignored all these facts and reviewed the article.) Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: user is referring to my marking the page as reviewed. This article appeared in the new page feed as a result of it being blanked and reverted. As the page is not a new page and since it had appropriate tags placed I marked it as reviewed to remove it from the New Pages feed.Polyamorph (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph:, can you refer to a single reliable source which verifies the next sentences at the very beginning of the article? "The Eastern Romance languages are a group of Romance languages that developed in Eastern Europe (specifically in the Balkans) from the local variant of Vulgar Latin. Today, the group consists of Romanian, Aromanian and two other related minor languages Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian." That is why I told you that you intervened in a content debate without dedicating time to understand it. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you deal with the content dispute on the article talk page, or request assistance / request for comment elsewhere. Such matters should not be dealt with by revert warring.Polyamorph (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph:, have you realised that I dealt with the content dispute on the article talk page more than a month ago? Have you realised that all my concerns have been ignored? Have you relised that I suggested alternative methods to solve the problem (creating a redirect page vs seeking for verified texts). Have you realised that a template message at the top of the article has been noticing all editors for more than a decade (yes, more than ten years!) that the article can any time be deleted? (Just a side remark, I did not delete the article, but sought for the verification of its subject both in the article and in the Talk page more than a month ago.) Sorry, I do not want to be rude, but if you are unable to study the history of the article, you should not intervene. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I realise all those things. Polyamorph (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was already surprised at your conviction that you had realised all this issues. Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- As an experienced user such as yourself should know, it does not matter who is right or wrong in such cases, edit warring is not the solution. And reverting further AFTER you have received formal notice reveals you are not prepared to resolve the dispute through finding consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- We agree. Edit war is not the solution. If you read my records I have not been often sanctioned for edit warring during the last more than eleven years. If you had read the Talk page of the article before placing random template messages on my Talk page, you would have realised that I had made several attempts to seek a consensual approach. Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- As an experienced user such as yourself should know, it does not matter who is right or wrong in such cases, edit warring is not the solution. And reverting further AFTER you have received formal notice reveals you are not prepared to resolve the dispute through finding consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was already surprised at your conviction that you had realised all this issues. Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I realise all those things. Polyamorph (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph:, have you realised that I dealt with the content dispute on the article talk page more than a month ago? Have you realised that all my concerns have been ignored? Have you relised that I suggested alternative methods to solve the problem (creating a redirect page vs seeking for verified texts). Have you realised that a template message at the top of the article has been noticing all editors for more than a decade (yes, more than ten years!) that the article can any time be deleted? (Just a side remark, I did not delete the article, but sought for the verification of its subject both in the article and in the Talk page more than a month ago.) Sorry, I do not want to be rude, but if you are unable to study the history of the article, you should not intervene. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you deal with the content dispute on the article talk page, or request assistance / request for comment elsewhere. Such matters should not be dealt with by revert warring.Polyamorph (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph:, can you refer to a single reliable source which verifies the next sentences at the very beginning of the article? "The Eastern Romance languages are a group of Romance languages that developed in Eastern Europe (specifically in the Balkans) from the local variant of Vulgar Latin. Today, the group consists of Romanian, Aromanian and two other related minor languages Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian." That is why I told you that you intervened in a content debate without dedicating time to understand it. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: user is referring to my marking the page as reviewed. This article appeared in the new page feed as a result of it being blanked and reverted. As the page is not a new page and since it had appropriate tags placed I marked it as reviewed to remove it from the New Pages feed.Polyamorph (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note Rgvis (talk · contribs) is the other party involved in this content dispute, and the two users seem to be having similar disagreements on other pages. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we have similar disagreements on other pages. And for the time being, we have been able to solve them without edit warring. Are you sure that your superficial approach is the best way to deal with problems in a sensitive area? Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ahem, your own diffs provided above show you are engaged in an edit war.Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the current content of this article was blocked in the last Borsoka's version, made after this user was warned not to make any changes, anymore.
- More than that, this article is part of a series of articles of the larger Romance languages project, the other sister projects being the Western Romance languages and Italo-Dalmatian languages articles. During the development process of these articles, the mode of editing was similar, all of them receiving too few inline citations.
- However, only the content of this article was deleted, while the others two were not affected. Of course, all these articles need to be improved, but this is not done through such radical actions. It would be fair to use the same set of measures for all articles that are in similar situations.
- Why was not the content improvement in this article encouraged? Why do editors who have contributed over the past 14 years to this article are not treated in the same way as editors of the other sister articles (as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith)? I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has come to work in such an arbitrary way. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC))
Page protected. El_C 07:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)
- Page
- Ben Shapiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904977717 by Deacon Vorbis (talk) (1) Removal of sourced information without a consensus on the talk pqge to do so (2) POV edits. If you have no horse, leave the article asw it was per BRD so that discussion can be had with article in the consensus state."
- 22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904976405 by Deacon Vorbis (talk) Yes, but per BRD, we discuss tih the article in the status quo ante. Please do not revert unless you relish an ANI report."
- 22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 904918868 by Beyond My Ken (talk): Discussw (TW)"
- 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904918355 by Wumbolo (talk) nope, just look at the sources"
- 07:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "/* top */ rem totally ridiculous tag"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
BMK has ten previous EW blocks. The other editor should perhaps be warned. wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have they been blocked recently, I ask while noting that you have. cygnis insignis 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, @Beyond My Ken:. Could you please not do this? Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Despite what some others may think, I do try. The truth is, I lose track of the number of edits and the time period they take place in. In general, these incidents happen when people rufuse to follow BRD, and all I'm trying to do is re-establish the status quo ante during discussions, and it gets me into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- BMK has a point about pre edit warring version. No idea why Wumbolo felt the need to replace the tag BMK removed. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Please note that I have added Template:Editnotices/Page/Ben Shapiro to the article, so 1RR is now in effect. El_C 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Louisdog6 reported by User:JeBonSer (Result: Blocked)
Page: Olivia Grant (actress, born 1983) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Louisdog6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
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:
The user of this account is only using this for removing an Infobox's image without reasons. See the user's all contributions.
This user account is disruptive for persistent removing an Infobox's image. Every time I revert these actions this user will also do the same within an interval of days or even months. The page which the user made its act is now protected with pending changes protection. But the protection is useless because the user is an autoconfirmed user. So this user account must be indefinitely blocked so it can't be operated anymore. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 20:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:1hitsmusic reported by User:Rutebega (Result: 31h)
- Page
- Category:LF Top Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 1hitsmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "Miley Cyrus - The Backyard Sessions - "Jolene"
- 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905094054 by OxonAlex (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) to 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- 20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete ~~ 1hitsmusic —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)"
- 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC) ""
- 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete ~~ 1hitsmusic"
- 19:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905090646 by Aboideau (talk)"
- 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete"
- 19:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete"
- 19:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905089080 by OxonAlex (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC) "July 2019"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1hitsmusic&diff=905094301&oldid=905092143
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Not an article and not on TP, but I've replied to the editor's message here
- Comments:
We're at 9 reverts already, and this editor isn't taking any hints. —Rutebega (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Changed a few things since twinkle isn't perfect —Rutebega (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Was reported to WP:AIV, as I considered removing CFD templates to be vandalism, especially after being warned. Has also been adding his justification for category, repeatedly, to talk pages. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 20:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Malformed)
- Page
- Chahat Pandey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Lisamol (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
- 01:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Chahat Pandey. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User continuously removed redirect and added unreliable sources. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is very likely a sock of SKS please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:58, 7 July 2019 (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..--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:5Ept5xW reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Apollo program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 5Ept5xW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "revert dishonest reversion, will remove blank section Undid revision 905146586 by Calidum (talk)"
- 05:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "dishonest reversion Undid revision 905146323 by General Ization (talk)"
- 04:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "this is not a quote, it is a description of a historical event. These are two different things, can you stop being threatening and get with the Wikipedia MOS and the NASA history office guidelines? Undid revision 905139364 by Randy Kryn (talk)"
- 03:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "current NASA history office guidelines are to use gender neutral language where possible (https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html). Current Wikipedia guidelines are also to use gender neutral language where possible. Undid revision 905132519 by Almostfm (talk)"
- 17:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "see "Principle_of_least_astonishment" Undid revision 904941987 by JustinTime55 (talk)"
- 17:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "revert vandalism of accessibility edit Undid revision 904911498 by JustinTime55 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Ongoing discussion is here. Calidum 05:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also, trying to start a vote here and here OkayKenji (talk page) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that is user OkayKenji, in a somewhat misguided attempt to be helpful. (Please see WP:NOTVOTE.) General Ization Talk 05:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- @General Ization: Sorry, I signed it,
but creating a vote is okay?Should I remove it? OkayKenji (talk page) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- @General Ization: Sorry, I signed it,
- Actually, I think that is user OkayKenji, in a somewhat misguided attempt to be helpful. (Please see WP:NOTVOTE.) General Ization Talk 05:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comments:
I am trying to improve the article, if you have a problem first discuss on the talk page instead of trying to sneak reverts past me. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:TParis (Result: Blocked)
Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MaxBrowne2
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MaxBrowne2
Comments:
- MaxBrowne2 has violated WP:CANVASS by positing a pointed message on a Wikiproject talk page to gather supporters for their view. User:No_Great_Shaker replaced that pointed message with a neutral one. MaxBrowne2 warred to keep their pointed message. They are hiding behind WP:Talk page guidelines but there is no exception for WP:EW for TPG. They have refused to participate at ANI.--v/r - TP 14:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not revert legitimate opinions from talk pages. Period. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- A legitimate opinion is fine but not in the context of issuing an invitation to a discussion elsewhere. People who visit that discussion must be able to make up their own minds about it without prior influence. That is why WP:CANVAS recommends Template:Please see. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- The WT:CHESS people are more than capable of making their own minds up. I should know, right Ihardlythinkso? MaxBrowne2 (talk)
- A legitimate opinion is fine but not in the context of issuing an invitation to a discussion elsewhere. People who visit that discussion must be able to make up their own minds about it without prior influence. That is why WP:CANVAS recommends Template:Please see. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not revert legitimate opinions from talk pages. Period. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just saw this. No evidence of any "influence" because there isn't any and wouldn't be any. All WP:CHESS members who saw his post know Maxbrowne2 had a concern over a likely WP:SNOW-close issue. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If Maxbrowne2 posts his opinion, does it exert influence on any active WP:CHESS member's view re the history of chess having theoretical foothold in Rome? Not even remotely likely.) It may on surface have looked like WP:CANVAS to uninvolved non-project members. But not really. --IHTS (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Dcflyer reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: Blocked)
Page: Mark Levin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcflyer (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:
3RR violation on 7 July:
Persistent edit-warring without violating 3RR:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- The user persistently edit-wars his changes into the article without any attempts to follow WP:BRD. The editor has violated 3RR once (today), but has on other occasions just persistently edit-warred while avoiding violating 3RR (going to 3 reverts within 24 hrs, and coming back later to continue reverting). I've repeatedly notified the user of both 3RR and WP:BRD, yet the user brazenly continues to edit-war without ever joining the talk page to discuss his edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - I happened to see this case after (regretfully) having to come here (below) about another issue and was curious as to why you keep removing well-sourced content re: NYTimes Best Sellers, calling his edits UNDUE? While I agree that edit warring is not the answer, neither is constantly reverting unjustifiably. Atsme Talk 📧 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours @Atsme: There are no exemptions in the EW policy for having well-sourced content. @Snooganssnoogans: I'm not going to block you because we have a tiny bit of history, but I'm giving you a heads up that I may have been inclined to block even for 3 reverts on an article with discretionary sanctions. Try to play it safer in the future.--v/r - TP 23:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: )
Page: Chahat Pandey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lisamol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: User's change
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Initial removal of redirect
- 2nd removal of redirect, 1st revert of me
- Adding article to redirect
- User improperly adding CSD template
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not respond to personal talk page messages.
Comments: User continously restored a redirect with unreliably sourced information. From talk page observation, user has a history of disruptive behavior and a previous editor noted that they were a potential sock. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was about to ask an admin to take a look at their UTP, contributions, and articles created (quite a few stubs in June-July). Their area of interest is Indian TV actors. There have also been some image copyvios but Commons took care of it - probably better if they didn't have to deal with it. Perhaps this is a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT or there may be a COI, I don't know. The removal of redirects for Chahat Pandey does tend to magnify the disruption somewhat when coupled with the other errors. Atsme Talk 📧 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Matt Campbell reported by User:Edf55 (Result: No violation (yet))
Page: Buddy Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Norah Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1968 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Country Music Association Award for Entertainer of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matt Campbell (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/w/index.php?title=Buddy_Guy&diff=905238130&oldid=905201529
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah_Jones&diff=905226904&oldid=905212197
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1968&diff=905225903&oldid=905220435
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Music_Association_Award_for_Entertainer_of_the_Year&diff=905225895&oldid=905220479
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matt_Campbell
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenny_Chesney&diff=905225845&oldid=905203348
Comments:
Sorry I didn't save the reported? Here are the proofs: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/04/photographer-sues-for-failure-to-provide-creative-commons-required-attribution-philpot-v-wos.htm https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attributionEdf55 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- All i did was fix someone's mistake. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone has the right to change another users edits. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- No violation. This is a content dispute about what is a "better" image, and Edf55 is not doing themselves many favours with their talk page comments. I have no idea what the Eric Goldman blog has to do with anything here (nothing, most likely). However, I *will* say (and this is a purely personal opinion) that the Buddy Guy image that Edf55 is reverting to is probably the better image - the Norah Jones / Kenny Chesney ones, not so much. But regardless of what you think, that's no reason to start edit-warring over it - discuss on the talk page(s), please; Edf55, you need to read WP:BRD. Further edit-warring on these articles will result in sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the Eric Goldman blog is, and it has nothing to do with it. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- El fotógrafo, Larry Philpot, extorsiona a los usuarios. ¡Bórralo!Edf55 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Matt Campbell (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- El fotógrafo, Larry Philpot, extorsiona a los usuarios. ¡Bórralo!Edf55 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Vasanthy546576 reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: )
- Page
- N. Shanmugalingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Vasanthy546576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Career */"
- 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC) ""
- 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Career */"
- 17:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Research */"
- 14:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Research */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on N. Shanmugalingam. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T.shan56/Archive MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)