EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 427: | Line 427: | ||
*{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for 3RR violation at [[Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907]]. I think that some semiprotections of [[WP:AA2]] articles might be considered if problems continue. The edits of [[User:Enverpasatr]] certainly deserve no credence. But the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Wikipedia on December 16th. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for 3RR violation at [[Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907]]. I think that some semiprotections of [[WP:AA2]] articles might be considered if problems continue. The edits of [[User:Enverpasatr]] certainly deserve no credence. But the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Wikipedia on December 16th. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:ZaniGiovanni]] reported by [[User:Hsynylmztr]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:ZaniGiovanni]] reported by [[User:Hsynylmztr]] (Result: Filer warned) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ali Kemal}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ali Kemal}} <br /> |
||
Line 461: | Line 461: | ||
*'''Comment''': Hsynylmztr opened this AN3 thread on their 24th edit. There’s clearly a longer history behind this account. Since May, Hsynylmztr has been attempting to slow edit-war this change into the article despite beng reverted by 4 different editors. Since 22 December they have reverted x3 compared to ZaniGiovanni’s 2 reverts (or my 2 reverts). So unclear the basis of their complaint. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 11:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''': Hsynylmztr opened this AN3 thread on their 24th edit. There’s clearly a longer history behind this account. Since May, Hsynylmztr has been attempting to slow edit-war this change into the article despite beng reverted by 4 different editors. Since 22 December they have reverted x3 compared to ZaniGiovanni’s 2 reverts (or my 2 reverts). So unclear the basis of their complaint. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 11:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Result:''' The filer, [[User:Hsynylmztr]] is '''warned'''. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Lyndsay Dart]] reported by [[User:Andyjsmith]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Lyndsay Dart]] reported by [[User:Andyjsmith]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 16:34, 25 December 2021
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:88.26.202.156 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Semi)
Page: Alans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.26.202.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Three different IPs have suddenly appeared out of nowhere and started edit warring to push the same view, reverting three veteran users. As seen in the revisions, the person behind these IPs is altering sourced information to POV push. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two years by User:Favonian due to a request at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Storm598 reported by User:XiAdonis (Result: Both warned)
Page: Netto-uyoku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Storm598 (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: [9] [10] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]
Comments:
I've warned this user twice against edit warring and initiated a discussion on the talk page after he ignored my suggested for him to do so himself, despite this he has continued to revert the page. XiAdonis (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- The user has been biased editing in several Japanese political articles. We can tell right away by looking at the article Netto-uyoku. # On the other hand, I have clearly presented a reliable source that supports that "Netto-uyoku" is essentially similar to or equal to "Alt-right" or "populist". --Storm598 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- In particular, as you can see from the "history" of the Netto-uyoku article, XiAdonis performed a clear vandalism by erasing all the edits I didn't contribute to in large quantities.[13] --Storm598 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- @XiAdonis and Storm598: Both have you reverted twice in a 24-hour period, which means that neither of you has violated 3RR. However, calling each other's edits vandalism is disruptive and not conducive to resolving your dispute. Therefore, you are both warned that if you persist in reversions and attacks, you may be blocked. I strongly urge you to continue your discussion on the article Talk page in a civil and constructive fashion, and if that doesn't work, use other methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Andrew1718 reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: No violation, BLP concern)
Page: Serena Auñón-Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew1718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061183596 by TJRC (talk)"
- 18:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060960495 by Rebroad (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 04:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Serena Auñón-Chancellor." by TJRC (talk)"
- 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Serena Auñón-Chancellor." by TJRC (talk)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Space Station Hole Controversy */ Reply"
Comments:
User won't back off from EW. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 17:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- The editor also received a WP:OWN warning from Rebroad ([16]) on the same behavior. His responses to warnings have consistently been to simply remove them and continue his behavior: [17], [18], [19].
- In addition, there many more reverts over the last few weeks by this user beyond the two listed above; a more complete list: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- And just now, even after this notice-board discussion was opened, he has reverted again. TJRC (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a BLP matter Are you seriously reverting to include an allegation of a deliberate destructive act, sourced to an aggregator, in a stand-alone section in a BLP? As far as I'm concerned, this is a BLP-exempt situation, and other editors are cautioned to respect BLP. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- No violation The reported editor has expressed a valid BLP-based reason for reverting. Editors are cautioned to respect such reasoning, and not to revert disputed content back into articles and then report here. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
User:174.93.246.240 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)
Page: Sony Pictures Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.93.246.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]
Comments:
User was warned twice in their talk page -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 20:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Weatherextremes reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Warned users)
Page: Seville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Weatherextremes (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:
- 19:39, 21 December 2021 by User:TechnicianGB (he quickly reverted the tag I've inserted in his talk page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:23, 21 December 2021 I gave him a warning here on the edit diff as well as I have recommended to follow WP:CYCLE and to use the talk page but the user kept reverting instead of using the talk page. He has used the talk page but after doing all of these reverts, I have also used it after that trying to resolve this issue but the user just keeps repeating the same "arguments" instead of trying to reach any point.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
- 20:24, 21 December 2021 (reverted within 2 minutes after writing it)
Comments:
The user Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just keeps deleting sourced content because he finds it "unreliable" and without even trying to solve anything in the talk page, he just reverts and reverts, as I've got reverted 4 times in less than 30 minutes.
This user has a problem with this phrase as well as he deleted it in the past, but in July I have inserted again this phrase with a proper source backing it up but he suddenly deleted it 2 days ago, when I've said it's his own problem (because no one else has bothered to delete this content) and that it should be discussed because he's the one that doubts on that source, I got 4 reverts in exchange, even after warning himself on the edit diffs, I reckon I have warned him too late in his own talk page, but I have has as well another "incident" with this user this past summer where he also edit warred on another page until an administrator took action, but that's a different thing. I suggest to return to the previous stable version of this page while doing some kind of action against this user, he has been also partially blocked on a certain article this year as well for trying to impose this own WP:POV as he is doing right now in the page Seville. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Both editors have broken WP:3RR on this today, and there is no exemption. This is a simple content dispute, not vandalism or a BLP issue. As far as the content goes, I will comment on the quality of the supposed "proper source" on the article's talk page, but an argument over whether or not a source is reliable is not a valid excuse for an edit war. Meters (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you look closely to the difs I tried twice to have the user engage in the talk page! I even left a message! It was only after I pointed to them that we should resolve this in the talk page they started engaging. I chose not to report them even though they broke the 3 revert rule also (that is my usual way of de-escalating similar situations) and have them discuss on the actual dispute over in the talk page! They keep throwing personal attacks against me (saying for example that I use self-published sources) and keep on escalating the situation without going into the essence of the debate, which is that we are talking about a tourist/clickbait source of low quality in order to enforce their POV. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Luckily edits are registered within Wikipedia. So he says he actually told me to go to the talk page? Interesting. this was the previous revert he done before I have told him about discussing it on the talk page, does anyone see any "advice" to go to the talk page? Or is it just this user that writes an argument saying again that source is not reliable? After that, I have warned him again about going to the talk page and to discuss as per WP:CYCLE instead of just reverting everything but I got instantly reverted 4 minutes later, where amongst other things, he said "the user is refusing to engage in talk page of the article." when I specifically wrote that this should be solved on the article's talk page, he reverted without even trying to do anything in the talk page. So please @Weatherextremes: can you tell me exactly when did I try to enforce my POV if it's you doubting about a source, without even using the talk page (just after reverting 4 times, not listening to advices as well) and deleting the warnings in your own talk page. How is that a behavior showing you want to resolve any dispute? Even if it's just you saying "it's a trashy tourist source" when it's actually not, but whatever. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, again the same non arguments! I feel we are going into circles here. I am at liberty of blanking my own talk page.This does not say anything on my willingness to resolve a dispute.It has been pointed out to you other times in the past, so please do not try to explain my actions through your own filters. I have asked you to engage in the talk page repeatedly and even left a comment in the talk which you responded to only after I pointed this out to you. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Warned Both Weatherextremes and TechnicianGB violated 3RR and are warned that any further reverts will likely result in a block. This is a content dispute. Please settle it on the talk page or on WP:RSN EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Nerfdart reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked from article space)
Page: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nerfdart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [41]
- 02:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Changing the subject of the lead sentence to match the title of the article"
- 01:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061490261 by Newimpartial (talk) Changed the subject of the lead sentence to match the title of the article"
- 01:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Changed the subject of the leading sentence to match the title of the article"
- 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061488466 by Newimpartial (talk) Changed the subject of the leading sentence to match the title of the article. It is not a POV edit. The article itself refers to "Cultural Marxism" on the very first line, and this article refers to the use of the term in that conspiracy, not the term itself."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Warned by Newimpartial previously, warning was blanked.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User reverted a fifth time after blanking the notice of this edit-warring enforcement discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I meant to block from the two titles that were in play, but the redirect to Cultural Marxism seems to be unrecognized by the interface. The block is for article space in general instead. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
78.82.178.37 reported by User:Dilmunite (Result: Semi)
Page: Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.82.178.37
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Ignoring the talk page discussion to settle the dispute
Comments:
This IP 78.82.178.37 has been persistently edit warring to push the same view, reverting the work of other users and deleting sources. This user was warned twice in his talk page. As seen in the revisions, the person behind these IP is altering sourced information to non-constructive POV push. This user continues ignoring the talk page discussion and accuses every source he doesn't like as being "biased kuwaiti". He deletes all the sourced information about their father's Iranian origin. In addition to persistent edit warring, 78.82.178.37's actions violate the following policies: WP:Ownership, WP:Civil, WP:RELIABILITY WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. Many of his contributions do not follow the standard format outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. At this stage, 78.82.178.37 should be held accountable. This IP is seemingly under the impression he owns this article. I'm not the only Wikipedia user who has noticed this IP's non-constructive behaviour in the article Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaity. Earlier this week, Such-change47 reverted this IP's nonconstructive edits. Similarly last month, GorgeCustersSabre reverted this IP's non-constructive edits. --Dilmunite (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two months due to disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:86.3.209.41 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Semi)
Page: Robert Evans (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.3.209.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
- 08:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC) to 08:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- 08:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robert Evans (writer)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Edit warring to remove paid editing templates, even though the templates are appropriate. Article is being discussed at WP:COIN Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected three months due to apparent COI editing by an IP. Use the talk pages to propose any changes you think are needed to article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Revirvlkodlaku and User:5.182.74.202 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Proxy block)
Page: 2 Unlimited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 5.182.74.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [53]
Diffs of the user's reverts: User:Revirvlkodlaku
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None undertaken by either party. Page-protection was put in place to encourage discussion. None undertaken and straight back to reverting when the protection expired.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- I've blocked Special:contributions/5.182.74.0/24 as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
- Apologies for the edit warring and lack of talk-page discussion. I considered the edits made by unregistered user to be wrong-headed and stubborn. My reason for not starting a talk page discussion was that I didn't expect an unregistered user, impossible to tag and address directly, to respond or engage. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: The IP's /24 range has been blocked one month by User:Bbb23 as an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:Greeis6 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley
95.167.33.112 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.167.33.112
Previous version reverted to: [65]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1061522216&oldid=1061438791
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1061605050&oldid=1061565405
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Greeis6 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Greeis6
- 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) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Taharka155 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Warned)
Page: African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taharka155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061589172 by Erp (talk) How can a consensus be reached that is completely contrary to the citations provided. Provide a source for the claim that African American is an ethnicity because the two citations listed clearly state that it is category defined by race and contains multiple ethnicities. Having an ethnicity purely defined by race makes no sense.."
- 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061573541 by Rsk6400 (talk) You need to address the uncited claim you have included in this article. Do not edit war please."
- 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061569785 by Rsk6400 (talk) Undone edit. You need to provide a source for your claim of an ethnic group rather than the two sources your provided that clearly state it is a racial category consisting of multiple ethnic groups."
- 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "changed ethnic group to racial category as neither source describes African Americans as an ethnicity, but explicitly as a racial category that contains multiple ethnicity. - "The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on African Americans (ethnicity)."
- 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on African Americans."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "/* African and Caribbean immigrants are not African American. Neither are Kamala Harris nor Barack Obama */ Warning: 3RR"
Comments:
We had long discussions at Talk:African Americans, Talk:African Americans (ethnicity), and WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_Americans_(ethnicity), in the course of which they attacked me personally, the worst attack being this one ("Ethnocide ... is precisely what you are doing"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
I have attempted to resolve disputes and have conversation with the individual Rsk6400, he has ignored and failed to address any of the points I have raised on multiple occasions as can be see in the talk pages for African Americans as well as African Americans (ethnicity). I've never had a long discussion with this person. He has reverted edits I have made repeatedly, followed me to other pages and reverted edits I have made there, and has not made any attempts to resolve the issues raised in maintenance templates that the user added to African Americans (ethnicity). The user has made several assertions that the ethnicity which I belong to does not exist. That is the definition of ethnocide, which he has falsely taken as an insult.--Taharka155 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
At my talk page, we had this conversation in which they equated opposition to their personal definition of the term African American with the Holocaust. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Taharka155 is warned for edit warring at African Americans. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. And accusing another editor of 'ethnocide' risks earning you a block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:178.71.197.203 reported by User:Greeis6 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:178.71.197.203&action=edit&redlink=1
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1056273475&oldid=1056272709
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [72]
Comments:
User keeps changing IP address to get around block. Edit warring has been going on constantly - user refuses to reach resolution. Greeis6 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Page protected Semi-protection applied for 72 hours. Not sure entirely what's up, but edit summaries show me it isn't collegial editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what's up.
- The highly authoritative references 2, 3 and 4 in the lead-in of this version of the San Fernando Valley article testify that the shortened colloquial name of the San Fernando Valley is the Valley. Greeis6 deletes references 3 and 4 and claims that the name should be written as The Valley, but fails to provide any authoritative source.
- Greeis6 insists (diff) that "Calabasas is classified with SMM - not SFV." But this authoritative source (the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1980) explicitly states that "Calabasas is not included within the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA."
- Finally, on the Talk page, Greeis6 deleted my perfectly legitimate edit: diff.
- So, if you care about Wikipedia's trustworthiness, permablock Greeis6 (he has a long history of edit warring--see his Talk page). And revert the article from the current erroneous version (the two errors are "The Valley" and "Calabasas is not part of the SFF") to my last version. —178.71.197.203 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is well into WP:LAME territory. If the over-the-top sniping continues, there will be blocks and rangeblocks just to spare everybody another capitalization war. Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @C.Fred — I wasn’t active in the past few hours, but thank you for protecting the page. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Chami46 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: )
Page: Jean Alesi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chami46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [73]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]
Comments:
Users edits have been challenged on not just the mentioned page but numerous other pages too, and rather than get consensus for the changes they just keep reverting back to their version with minimal discussion. They have not yet violated the 3RR, but that is because I stopped reverting because I reached 3 reverts reverting back to the stable version. Editor is currently continuing to edit war.
Now also including insults in edit summaries.
See users history page for more examples. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: User has also started editing other talk page contributions GimliDotNet (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GimliDotNet:, I think it might have been a case of editing the wrong version. I made my comment in two pieces and it corresponds, so I wouldn't consider the interaction on my talk page to be part of edit-warring, just something that ought to have occurred at Talk:Jeff Hardy. They did not revert me when I undid their edit. --SVTCobra 22:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
User:217.149.166.11 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Blocked)
Page: Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.149.166.11 (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: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [89]
Comments:
This IP is edit warring across multiple pages, could be a banned user. Made multiple reverts on other articles too. For example, he made 3 rvs on Harry Sassounian: [90] [91] [92], misquoting the source, despite other users telling him that the source does not support his claim. In general, most of this IP contributions are edit warring on Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles, which is area covered by arbitration ruling. He was warned about that too: [93] Grandmaster 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- ”Could be a banned user” - I’ll just let that sit here. Isnt the number one rule to assume good faith? I ask the administrators to review Grandmaster’s record of edit warring and POV pushing on Talk:Shusha and Talk:Stepanakert and Talk:Lachin. That is edit warring, along with ganging up on other users.—217.149.166.11 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Let us also not forget that you have tried to downplay Azerbaijani-backed sources as neutral. That in itself deserves a mention at another noticeboard, but I wont do it because we already have one open - something that you do not seem to realize--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who commented in the last discussion regarding IP, I must admit this is getting ridiculous. First, ANI discussion was opened with ban calls accompanied by insufficient diffs, despite IP communicating with every editor and opening discussions [94]. Now, edit-warring report is being opened even tho IP isn't even aware of WP:EW or WP:3RR? There isn't even a single edit-warring notice in their talk page. Without diving into content details which isn't relevant here and is actually being discussed in the talk page (which was initiated by IP), I would like to only point out that we don't shop with reports, especially when relevant warnings weren't even given. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- The IP was given sufficient warning about edit warring with all the necessary links. [95] He was also warned about arbitration ruling. Yet he chose to continue the same behavior on many pages. Grandmaster 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Are you joking? The Robert McClellon thing was in response to a turkish vandalist (Enverpasatr, named after Enver Pasha), to which the user who removed my edit then responded by blocking the vandal --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#EnverPasaTr. That is all resolved. Again, you are looking for artificial evidence while accusing me of something you can not support factually--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The IP was given sufficient warning about edit warring with all the necessary links. [95] He was also warned about arbitration ruling. Yet he chose to continue the same behavior on many pages. Grandmaster 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
How about keeping the discussiom to one noticeboard or one place? you should know better than to start WP:FORUMSHOPING all over the place. It's funny that you edit warred until he made one more revert than you to report The IP. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation at Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907. I think that some semiprotections of WP:AA2 articles might be considered if problems continue. The edits of User:Enverpasatr certainly deserve no credence. But the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Wikipedia on December 16th. EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:ZaniGiovanni reported by User:Hsynylmztr (Result: Filer warned)
Page: Ali Kemal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061910205&oldid=1061863311 [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061910205&oldid=1061863311
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061558594&oldid=1061435855
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061636107&oldid=1061615492
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061707133&oldid=1061703288
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Kemal [diff]
== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#ZaniGiovanni. Thank you. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#DeCausa. Thank you. [diff]
Comments: I have read many books on the subject. Since I know Ottoman Turkish, I also read the 20th-century newspaper reports of Ali Kemal. But I couldn't convince ZaniGiovanni and DeCausa not to delete my edit. Since it is an open-source network, I tried to explain my sources to them on the talk page. But he and DeCausa just kept deleting my edits without showing any source. I told them again and again, my sources include Ali Kemal's own posts from the newspaper but they insisted on deleting my edits. After many reverts and long explanations I decided to report the case since it was obvious they were not trying to discuss, they were doing an edit war. The page of Ali Kemal was very pale and uninformative. Because I have read many books and did many researches on the subject, I edited the page with long and detailed sources. User 'ZaniGiovanni' also said that he doesn't count Turkish sources as reliable, which sounds very racist to me. I guess we should convince him first before putting any war reports from the Turkish Ministry of War History(!) I think it damages the open-sourcenes of Wikipedia to delete my edit which is a result of months of reading, in a few seconds. I am pretty sure they don't speak Turkish but they are so persistent of deleting my edit by just saying 'your sources are not reliable because they are Turkish'. As a Turkish person I honestly feel like we are being attacked on the internet, on Wikipedia specifically. They are editing the page of the Turkish War of Independence and trying to label it as genocide. Every page that includes Turks and other nations is being excessively edited. User ZaniGiovanni is an Armenian person and I respect that but it is clear that's why he keeps deleting my edits about Ali Kemal. Anyways, I don't want to make this report too long. I know not everyone is hysterically racist. Thank you for your help. Hsynylmztr (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- First of all, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for including disputed content, and secondly, no guidelines were broken by me or DeCausa in Ali Kemal article. You've been explained both by me and 3rd party editor why your edit is WP:UNDUE and is essentially a jingoistic WP:ADVOCACY, please read the talk discussion and comment. Also, "I have read many books / I read Turkish" isn't an argument. This whole report overall seems very WP:BATTLEGROUND motivated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't need fancy words. Just explain how did you decide these sources are unreliable if you do not speak Turkish. I did not say I am right because I speak Turkish, I said I can actually read sources about Ali Kemal because I speak Turkish. Even his own newspapers are not of a source enough for you? Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I did actually explain it to you in talk, and it isn't just reliability. You seem to ignore the guidelines that I show you or don't read them. And this isn't a talk page discussion btw, you filed an inadequate report and now came here to discuss content? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I know it is not the place for discussion. I was waiting for an admin to respond, why did you reply to me here? It is not an discussion page. And you didn't explain anything toa anyone. You just deleted my entire edit by saying 'Turkish sources are not reliable'. How come Ali Kemal's own newspaper reports are not a reliable source ??? Is there any other source that is more reliable than his own words? Please stop editing my report. I am sure admins will read both of our edits in the talk section. You deleted all the books because they are Turkish. Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Hsynylmztr opened this AN3 thread on their 24th edit. There’s clearly a longer history behind this account. Since May, Hsynylmztr has been attempting to slow edit-war this change into the article despite beng reverted by 4 different editors. Since 22 December they have reverted x3 compared to ZaniGiovanni’s 2 reverts (or my 2 reverts). So unclear the basis of their complaint. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Result: The filer, User:Hsynylmztr is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Lyndsay Dart reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: )
Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lyndsay Dart (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:
User:Peppergoat23 reported by User:WikiLinuz (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page: David Frawley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peppergoat23 (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: diff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
Disruptive behavior, notified here and here WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- PS: persistent vandalism despite multiple warnings (this, this, this, this, this) WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)