EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →User:RuthSmith95 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked): Change RuthSmith 101 to Ruth Smith 101 |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
The reverts are just outside the 24-hour window, but the editor has [[Special:Diff/889620207|declared]] that they will not respect consensus and continue to edit war. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
The reverts are just outside the 24-hour window, but the editor has [[Special:Diff/889620207|declared]] that they will not respect consensus and continue to edit war. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Nick Thorne]] reported by [[User:Oldstone James]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Nick Thorne]] reported by [[User:Oldstone James]] (Result: No violation) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Answers in Genesis}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Answers in Genesis}} <br /> |
||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
*This is ridiculous. Firstly, I have not violated 3RR and I clearly indicated on the talk page that I would not. The OP posted this report while I was writing my last response on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=889707410&oldid=889704939 here]. My reverst have had edit summaries explaining why they were being made and pointing the OP to the talk page. Their responses have been cambatitive. The diff for the "Attempt to resolve dispute" was to a discussion I was not even involed in. The reporting editor's recent history on the page in question shows a pattern of battleground behaviour and disputes with multiple editors. If anyone is involved in an edit war it is them. This is all I have to say on this subject. - [[User:Nick Thorne|<b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<sup style="color: darkblue">''talk''</sup>]] 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC) |
*This is ridiculous. Firstly, I have not violated 3RR and I clearly indicated on the talk page that I would not. The OP posted this report while I was writing my last response on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=889707410&oldid=889704939 here]. My reverst have had edit summaries explaining why they were being made and pointing the OP to the talk page. Their responses have been cambatitive. The diff for the "Attempt to resolve dispute" was to a discussion I was not even involed in. The reporting editor's recent history on the page in question shows a pattern of battleground behaviour and disputes with multiple editors. If anyone is involved in an edit war it is them. This is all I have to say on this subject. - [[User:Nick Thorne|<b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<sup style="color: darkblue">''talk''</sup>]] 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''No violation'''. I note the comment "''one user ([[user:Nunh-huh]]) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and [[user:1990'sguy]]) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected''". Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false. At least four other editors ''apart'' from Nick Thorne ([[User:Roxy the dog]], [[User:Rododendrites]], [[User:Doug Weller]] and [[User:Dave souza]]) have objected to all or some of your various changes. I would strongly suggest that you go back to that talk page and try to form a consensus for your edits, rather than attempting to edit-war them into the article without one. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:16, 27 March 2019
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:Merphee reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merphee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
This is not the first time Merphee has broken 3RR on this page. I file a separate report a while ago, which got the page protected for 12 hours. I and other editors have made substantial effort to reach any sort of middleground with Merphee. I do not believe that they are interested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Merphee seems to have broken 3RR more than once now, with the justification that two people undoing his reverts is a "tag team" and a "technical" violation of WP:3RR. This makes it all the more strange why they make four reverts in a short amount of time, not merely a technicality of a violation, and showing that they have been very aware, at least on two occasions, of policy regarding this. Merphee has "apologised" for this before, the sincerity of which has been doubted from their refusal to undo their revert, and I think this instance shows they have no intention of stopping. However, what concerns me is being accused of forming part of a "tag team" or some other kind of conspiracy whenever I happen to agree with someone or make edits that are similar or complementary to someone else's. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is complete rubbish Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth. You were both Wikipedia:Tag teaming and edit warring. Multiple editors have agreed and have made comments. It aint just me who's observed it. It's there in front of anyone who cares to read the thread. Here are just a few other editor's assessment of their daylight tag teaming, bad faith editing and edit warring. This one [8] and another editor's same conclusion here for the edit warring and bad faith and provocative edit made during the discussion [9] and here [10] and [11] and then here from yet another editor, saying how they thought it odd that the notifier PeterTheFourth, was also clearly edit warring and each of us should have received a block [12]. I mean it was absolute classic tag teaming no doubt about it. Twice. Two weeks apart. I've served my block, which was fair enough because I breached the 3RR rule. But why are these two tag teamers getting away with their tag teaming to circumvent the normal process of consensus by coordinating their actions to sidestep the 3RR policy? And if no sanctions are applied to these editor's edit warring, further disruption and a compromised article will continue on Talk:The Australian as they both have now jammed in a bold bad faith edit right in the middle of the 'consensus building process'. Not cool. I have made this edit today [13] over at Talk:The Australian to help us move toward a long term resolution to this ongoing debate and one that another editor has pointed out has been going on for 10 years. ::However before a resolution can be reached can sanctions be applied to Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth @Swarm:? Not sure if I am supposed to open a fresh report against them both for tag teaming and edit warring and disruption with their bad faith edits during talk page discussion or just post here as I've done? Merphee (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- And here is Onetwothreeip edit warring once again @Swarm:. Thankfully another civil minded editor has put a stop to it and restored the article to the version it was before Onetwothreeip/PeterTheFourth jammed in their contentious preferred version in bad faith. [14]. Onetwothreeip also refuses to discuss the possibility of using dispute resolution which I've suggested multiple times or tell other editors if they are in support of a very reasonable proposal made by another editor earlier this month. Here is my latest attempt to try and resolve this long term over at Talk:The Australian [15]. Merphee (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Kleuske reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)
- Page
- Eric Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Ph. D. in Maths, publications on the subject. Hence he qualifies as a mathematician. Please seek consensus on the TP. Thanks. Undid revision 889107594 by Dfsfscasdq (talk)"
- 08:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 90.241.121.154 (talk) to last version by Kleuske"
- 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Per WP:V, WP:BLP. Source does not support claim. See TP."
- 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "I bet he never wrote a paper on Tibetan funeral ceremonies, either. Nor did he win the Tour de France, the Boston Marathon of the Iron Man. The fact that he has never written a paper (i.e. scientific publication) on the subjects is irrelevant."
- 9:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Source?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Seems clear-cut. 4 reverts within 24 hours, and another revert the day after. Both editors discussed on talk, but that is not an excuse for edit warring AFAIK. If she isn't blocked, full page protection will be necessary. The other party in this dispute, new editor Dfsfscasdq, has also been edit warring (though did not break 3RR), but I only gave them a warning. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- A claim that Weinstein isn’t a mathematician or has never written a paper on maths can be argued to be libelous, since the man holds a Ph.D. in maths and published several papers in that field. Denying him his publications and field of study is more than just a little insulting. Wikipedia stresses the importance of proper sources for BLP’s. None of it was actually sourced, the changes were contentious. BLP mandates reverting in such cases. If you want me blocked for taking BLP seriously, then so be it. Kleuske (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Removal of the claim that Weinstein never published in mathematics or physics might be protected by WP:3RRNO since it appears badly sourced. (For instance, his thesis appears to qualify as a publication in physics. Also, how do you prove a negative without a source? -- people may not include all their publications in any particular resume). But whether 'mathematician' should be in the lead looks to be a regular issue of WP:Due weight which can only be settled by a consensus on the talk page. So continued reverting on the lead sentence should be blockable. User:Kleuske and User:Dfsfscasdq should pay attention to that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stale Doesn't look like any admin wanted to act on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
User:195.60.233.242 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Ark of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 195.60.233.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ from the wikipedia page of Kapporet (is it good now?"
- 21:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ wtvr"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) to 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ to the one who reverted my edit pls read the Wikipedia page on Kapporet"
- 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */"
- 20:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ Jewish tradition to define things that are sourced from judaism"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"
- 21:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"
- 21:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – 48 hours for vandalism at Talk:Climate change: removing others' comments. The IP was also edit warring on this article, on whether Jewish or Christian terminology ought to be used. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Merphee reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Stale)
Page: The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merphee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16]
Diffs of the user's reverts: Original four reverts from previous report.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
Comments:
Merphee has broken 3RR twice before, once warned and once blocked. About 24 hours after the last incident, the duration of the block, they have begun to make the same revert edits again. Notifying Swarm, the admin who resolved the previous report. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is complete rubbish Onetwothreeip and I served my block. And I had no intention of reverting you again today. Apology to administrators for posting this here as well as under the last notice. You and PeterTheFourth were both Wikipedia:Tag teaming and edit warring. Multiple editors have agreed and have made comments. It aint just me who's observed it. It's there in front of anyone who cares to read the thread. Here are just a few other editor's assessment of their daylight tag teaming, bad faith editing and edit warring. This one [23] and another editor's same conclusion here for the edit warring and bad faith and provocative edit made during the discussion [24] and here [25] and [26] and then here from yet another editor, saying how they thought it odd that the notifier PeterTheFourth, was also clearly edit warring and each of us should have received a block [27]. I mean it was absolute classic tag teaming no doubt about it. Twice. Two weeks apart. I've served my block, which was fair enough because I breached the 3RR rule. But why are these two tag teamers getting away with their tag teaming to circumvent the normal process of consensus by coordinating their actions to sidestep the 3RR policy? And if no sanctions are applied to these editor's edit warring, further disruption and a compromised article will continue on Talk:The Australian as they both have now jammed in a bold bad faith edit right in the middle of the 'consensus building process'. Not cool. I have made this edit today [28] over at Talk:The Australian to help us move toward a long term resolution to this ongoing debate and one that another editor has pointed out has been going on for 10 years. ::However before a resolution can be reached can sanctions be applied to Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth @Swarm:? Merphee (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- And here is Onetwothreeip edit warring once again @Swarm:. Thankfully another civil minded editor has just put a stop to it and restored the article to the version it was before Onetwothreeip/PeterTheFourth jammed in their contentious preferred version in bad faith. [29]. I was certainly NOT going to revert Onetwothreeip so I'm glad they did. Onetwothreeip also refuses to discuss the possibility of using dispute resolution which I've suggested multiple times or tell other editors if they are in support of a very reasonable proposal made by another editor earlier this month. Here is my latest attempt to try and resolve this long term dispute over at the talk page [30]. Merphee (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've been following this, reverted the reporting user, and generally endorse the equally persistent reported user (except the 3RR, for which they have already been blocked). The reporting user shows more interest in 'discussion', which continues well after the matter is resolved and consensus is found. I regard the contributions I am aware of as edit warring, vindictive and drama-mongering. I am not aware of significant improvements they may have made to other content, I am merely speaking about the contributions I am aware of, which seem to avoid legitimate content and favour solutions that keep the discussion going. cygnis insignis 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with that assessment of Merphee but more importantly they clearly believe that a sanction for breaking 3RR is merely the price one pays for making repeated reverts when they feel it necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your tag-teaming buddy has a mouth on him Cygnis insignis Let me be brief - consulting a thesaurus and switching every second word to a synonym makes you look stupid, not smart. I've tried to be nice about this habit of yours - just stop it. PeterTheFourth 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC) twenty minutes ago cygnis insignis 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stale Looking at the most recent contributions, Merphee has stopped reverting and is discussing on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Swarm: and @Ritchie333: the edit war is continuing at The Australian. Today Pinkbeast has reverted 3 times within a half hour here [31], here [32] and here [33]. I assume if I had not withdrawn from trying to restore the status quo at least while we try and discuss the edit they are trying to jam in against consensus, Pinkbeast would not have stopped reverting. The tag team comprising Pinkbeast, PeterTheFourth and Onetwothreeip refuse to engage in constructive consensus building or answer me when I've politely asked if they would like to use dispute resolution. They are forming an active and obvious tag team to circumvent. There is certainly no consensus for a single label of The Australian. This edit is therefore made in bad faith. Multiple editors have opposed any single descriptor/label and this is obvious to any editor who reads the month long discussion on the talk page. There has also been some extremely nasty and insulting comments made by PeterTheFourth toward another editor which is beyond uncivil. This comment [34] is entirely unacceptable and I'm asking an administrator at least ask PeterTheFourth to stop this type of abuse toward a good faith editor. Much bullying and intimidation typical of a tag team actively operating at this article page. Merphee (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Merphee: You won't tell us what your objections are to the content, you just keep claiming there isn't consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 1 week)
- Page
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "originally put edit in wrong section; now put it where it belongs"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC) to 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
1RR violation for the third time on the same article for the same content. User was blocked for previous edit warring and sent to ANI for incivility and copyvio. Procedural only for this crusade to ram POV criticism into the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note their entire edit appears to be a copyright violation in its totality. Their revisions might have to be entire revdelled.Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Owing to previous blocks, escalating to 1 week and filing as an Arbcom discretionary sanctions block. I didn't see an obvious copyvio when doing a Google search for random texts, but if another editor can confirm where it was copied from, we can handle that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry that I misclicked on my phone and I don’t have time to check fully. In their edit,
Bill Gates was equally critical of Modern Monetary Theory, an economic theory popular with some politicians theorizing that government...”
is entirely copied from [35] This ANI discussion found that almost all of this user’s large additions are flagrant copyright violations copy pasted from somewhere. Do we block people for rigorous copyvio? They’re clearly made aware of it. Pinging @Dr.K.: Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)- Okay, I can see the copyvio so I've revision deleted those. We generally block indefinitely if a user's contributions are entirely or mostly copyvios; in this user's case the problematic behaviour has only started recently so a week will suffice for the moment. However, I think the next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Tsumikiria. I have commented on the now blocked user's talkpage after the user made comments indicating he did not think he reverted anyone and that he was not edit-warring. Dr. K. 21:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see the copyvio so I've revision deleted those. We generally block indefinitely if a user's contributions are entirely or mostly copyvios; in this user's case the problematic behaviour has only started recently so a week will suffice for the moment. However, I think the next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry that I misclicked on my phone and I don’t have time to check fully. In their edit,
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Owing to previous blocks, escalating to 1 week and filing as an Arbcom discretionary sanctions block. I didn't see an obvious copyvio when doing a Google search for random texts, but if another editor can confirm where it was copied from, we can handle that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Hedgielamar reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked, 1 week)
Page: E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hedgielamar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:58, 25 March 2019
- 08:32, 26 March 2019
- 10:55, 26 March 2019
- 11:11, 26 March 2019
- 15:10, 26 March 2019
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Warned on March 11 by C.Fred
- Warned on March 21 by Wallyfromdilbert
- Warned on March 25 by Ronz
- Warned on March 25 by Theroadislong
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Talk:E. J. Levy#Edit war ongoing: Talk page discussion about this dispute involving those concerned started on March 11 by Hedgielamar; however, Hedgielamar seems to have abandoned the discussion anre reverted back to edit warring when the consensus appeared to be developing against their proposed changes.
Comments:
There's some serious edit warring going on at E. J. Levy involving multiple editors, sock puppetry and possible COI editing. I only came across this article at WP:BLPN#E.J. Levy and am not a party to the content dispute. Multiple reverts are being made back and forth, but the primary cause of the disruption appears to be Hedgielamar. This editor has been requested to discuss their concerns about the article content a number of times by different editors, but keeps reverting to their preferred version of the article. There have been user talk page posts made by mutliple editors also advising Hedgielamar to seek consensus for the changes they wish to make, but the reverts have continued. There's also be discussion on the article talk page as well, but the reverts still have continued. I've only posted the most recent diffs, but the content dispute/edit warring appears to have been going for at least a couple of weeks and possibly longer. Hedgielamar is the creator of the article so their concern over article content is some what understandable; article creators, however, don't get any final editorial control over article content and are expected to resolve content disputes per WP:DR just like anyone else. I think this edit sum left by C.Fred on March 25 sums things up quite well: Hedgielamar seems intent to continue edit warring until others grow tired and just give in. That kind of brute force battleground approach is starting to seriously indicate a WP:NOTHERE approach to editing that needs to be addressed. As a courtesy, pinging (in no particular order) C.Fred, Theroadislong, Ronz, Wallyfromdilbert, BushelCandle, Drmies, -sche and NekoKatsun since they have been editing the article. Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac also were involved, but they have been CU blocked per WP:SOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. After the two accounts above were blocked, Hedgielamar reverted until they individually crossed the 3RR threshold. As a second offence, I escalated the block to one week. I also cautioned them that any sockpuppetry would result in an indefinite block of their account. Any admin who feels this block is too short is free to extend it without consulting with me. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:5.83.102.18 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 5.83.102.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 09:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889421785 by DonQuixote (talk) Removed material not supported by a proper secondary source."
- 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889354748 by DonQuixote (talk) Removed inappropriate primary sources."
- 04:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ Removed material based on primary sources as per regentspark's direction on the talk page."
- 23:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "restored well-written and sourced material."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 09:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Viewer ratings */"
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Crabin reported by User:Moscow Connection (Result: blocked 48 hours)
Page: Mariah Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crabin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Crabin's first two edits (25 March, 6:05 and 6:14)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 26 March, 4:46 and 4:49
- 26 March, 5:01, 5:05 and 5:06
- 26 March, 6:35
- 26 March, 7:38, 7:39 and 7:46
- 26 March, 9:36
- 26 March, 10:22
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
A newly registered user has been adding more or less the same thing about "lack of apology" for over 24 hours now and would not stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Crabin: The reason the agency filed complaint against Mariah Bell was because she didn't apologize. I stated a relevant fact and cited the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Below is Moscow Connection's very objective reason sent to me on why it shouldn't be added. Note that Mariah Bell didn't "touch" Eunsoo. She slashed her leg with a sharp blade.
Moscow Connection: Stop adding this <lack of apolgy> over and over. I don't think it's important or relevant. You don't have to apologize every time you touch somebody. She probably didn't think something serious had happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, she touched/scratched her with her blade. As Rafael Arutyunyan has put it, "she slightly scratched Lim Eun-soo's leg with her blade" ("лезвием конька она слегка чиркнула по голени Ынсу Лим") [38].
And what matters here is that you have reverted multiple times, thus violating the three-revert rule. And I still don't agree to this change and if no one else reverts I will revert myself (in due time). And by the way your changes are unsourced, too. (I've looked at the sources you used and they don't say anything like that.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC) - RT translates it as "touched" so it's probably a better translation than "scratched". (It actually is.)
“The thing is that Mariah’s program includes an element where she lays her leg back and stretches it. This is how it happened that she touched Lim’s leg with her blade. Of course it was not deliberately!” Arutyunyan told R-Sport after the scandal involving his skaters. “There has never been any confrontation between them at training sessions. And by the way, look at Mariah! Do you think this girl could offend anybody? I can’t even imagine who decided to write such kind of things about her.”
More here: Talk:Mariah Bell#Edit warring by Crabin. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Crabin: Bell not apologizing after collision is a direct quote from source <27>, cited right after the addition. TMZ magazine : https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/21/u-s-figure-skater-accused-of-slashing-korean-rival/ "Mariah Bell didn’t apologize to Lim Eun-soo after the incident and instead continued to rehearse for her routine."
as for Moscow Connection's "touch" if you play the video at 40 second you can clearly see the "touch" caused a serious gash on her leg https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1005188936
Also if the reason that she merely touched her with a blade is because of the coach's quote, he didn't even come by to check on Eunsoo when she was being treated by the medical team. His wife is helping her get patched up while he is nowhere to be seen. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/eunsoo-lim-receives-medical-attention-after-injuring-leg-1.5067022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Are you from South Korea? The video won't play for me, it just says: "We only offer this video to viewers located within Korea (해당 영상은 해외에서 재생이 불가합니다)".
2. There were another sources exactly after, Independent and CBC, but I'll look. And I still don't think it's relevant. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC) - Note to administrators: I would also like to draw attention to this edit: [39]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Update. The user won't stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:RuthSmith95 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked)
Page: 2018–19 Nashville Predators season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 26 March 2019 (I am already at 3 reverts so I am showing the last good version)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:38, 26 March 2019
- 10:21, 26 March 2019
- 10:28, 26 March 2019
- 11:03, 26 March 2019
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:23, 26 March 2019
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The user is also treating 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, Stanley Cup playoffs, and File:NFL100th.png as a battleground. This might not be the place, but it appears that this user is the same person as Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) (simply looking at the user page it is evident that it is the same person since both user pages have the same content) and the disruptive pattern is evident in both users' edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update: The reported user has moved its old user to a new namespace by itself, which I believe is forbidden. In addition, reversions are continuing at File:NFL100th.png when the wrong and obsolete logo is reinstated. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is certainly something strange going on with user and talk pages. The original talk page now seems to be User talk:Ruth Smith 95, and there is a redirect at User talk:Ruth Smith 101. That certainly complicates the User: and User talk: namespaces, having pages around without corresponding accounts. It also happens to lose the edit history for the user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given the editing history of the original user and the reported user, I assume that he/she just is not competent enough to be here. RuthSmith95 was created several hours after Ruth Smith 101's last edit, which indicates that user might have wanted to have a clean start, but there are bigger problems than that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have managed to get this user to discontinue their behavior after they had confronted me on my talk page in regards to their edits being reverted. I gave them a simple explanation based on what I believe (not sure if my
reason meets the standards of those that participate on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey pageexplanation would be an actual reason that a participant on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey page would provide an inexperienced user with). But, it seems that my explanation appears to have made the user "understand" (for now) the reason for their edits being reverted. Yowashi (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have managed to get this user to discontinue their behavior after they had confronted me on my talk page in regards to their edits being reverted. I gave them a simple explanation based on what I believe (not sure if my
- Given the editing history of the original user and the reported user, I assume that he/she just is not competent enough to be here. RuthSmith95 was created several hours after Ruth Smith 101's last edit, which indicates that user might have wanted to have a clean start, but there are bigger problems than that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is certainly something strange going on with user and talk pages. The original talk page now seems to be User talk:Ruth Smith 95, and there is a redirect at User talk:Ruth Smith 101. That certainly complicates the User: and User talk: namespaces, having pages around without corresponding accounts. It also happens to lose the edit history for the user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The user pages are now again at User:Ruth Smith 101 and User talk:Ruth Smith 101. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- ... and also at User:RuthSmith95 and User talk:RuthSmith95! --T*U (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. This user has two accounts, though they appear to have stopped using Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) as of March 9. The moves of their user page are confusing. It sems that Anthony has straightened those out. It would be helpful if RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs) would communicate more on talk pages. And stop edit warring, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Epipelagic, User:Velella, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Geoffreyrabbit reported by User:Ɱ (Result: No violation)
Page: Fish as food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Epipelagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Velella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geoffreyrabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/876004325
- Special:Diff/876136767
- Special:Diff/876287567
- Special:Diff/876288759
- Special:Diff/876416605
- Special:Diff/876434476
- Special:Diff/876454269
- Special:Diff/876454320
- Special:Diff/876454526
- Special:Diff/876702240
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
- diff
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link 2
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Fish as food#Lead image
Comments:
I recommend protecting Fish as food and perhaps even a topic ban for these users displaying WP:OWN over the lede image. There has been a complete breakdown in communication between editors here, with completely no regard for each other, and almost a month full of edit warring here by multiple users, spanning from December 30 to March 26. Only Anna Frodesiak had actually used the talk page, a little late, on January 4. None of these other users had even commented until I attempted to stop the edit warring and resume discussions on talk. ɱ (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's always fascinating when an otherwise rational editor says they attempted to "stop the edit warring" by... wait for it... edit warring themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have protected the page for 24 hours to stop the warring. The discussion at the talk page looks promising and I suggest that all parties (including Ɱ, who has dived in head first and joined the war themselves) cool down and discuss the thing rationally there and come to a consensus. Other than that I don't see any need for action. Most of the edits concerned were 1-2 months ago. — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chill, I merely wanted to return to what I had found was consensus and have everyone take it to talk, and warned of escalation if you all continued edit warring. Epipelagic especially shows signs of OWNership of this article, having even been reverting users over the lead image in 2014, and hadn't even discussed this on the talk page once before I really had to go in and stop nearly a month of edit warring. ɱ (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- What rubbish you talk ɱ. Go and find something useful to do. – Epipelagic (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No violation. @Ɱ: This report is an abuse of process at a minimum. If I see you do it again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you see how many diffs there are there? There was no discussion going on for months, it was pretty blatant edit warring. Don't attack me for utilizing the proper channels to stop this, and don't threaten me. ɱ (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- And clearly even though you have a nice little AN3 template, you're incorrect, Amakuru already found a violation and thus protected the page. Stop attacking me, take Epipelagic's advice and go find something useful to do. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please, do tell, how reporting clear back-and-forth between users' preferred images, with little-to-no use of the talk page even is "an abuse of process"?!? That's literally textbook edit warring. ɱ (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
So, between 1 February and 24 March, there had been 1 (ONE) revert by 1 of the four named editors. Then, Ɱ starts edit warring, reverting to a version of 5 January which had stood for less than 2 hours, without at that time even having joined the talk page discussion. When reverted, they again revert to their preferred version, with edit summary "Longstanding consensus version. Now that this is in a talk page discussion, please let's discuss. Any further actions and I will pursue blocks and page protection for edit warring." The version they reverted to was not a longstanding consensus version though, this is the version from before the edit war of January. They made similar claims at the talk page discussion: "Stop edit warring and do not keep adding back your favored image over the longstanding image, ignoring my and others' warnings." They are berating Anna Frodesiak on their talk page, clearly without knowing or understanding anything of the history and of what steps Anna took. I would support a final warning for Ɱ that any similar reports in the future will lead to a block. This is a frivolous, uninformed, time-wasting exercise where their own actions are the main cause of the current problems. Fram (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to see 32 different edits back and forth as not edit warring, okay. But I took this here to stop it literally right after my final warning to stop edit warring. The image they were pushing was not the longstanding consensus version (neither was the one I added back, but it appears none have that much consensus behind it). Literally, once again, AN fails me and perpetuates the system of blaming those who report others. Really freaking sad. ɱ (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- No one has said that there wasn't an edit war in January. However, that edit war had long since ended, until you restarted it with false claims about consensus versions or longstanding images (which you now at least admit was a false claim). 3 of the 4 people you dragged to ANEW had not edited the page the last two months, and you had not made any effort to discuss this before you decided to revert to a disputed version. Basically, you first restarted a long-finished edit war, you did this with incorrect claims of consensus and the like, you then started warning people for behaviour you continued just as much, and then you dragged people here even when they had done nothing remotely wrong in the last 2 months; and then you are surprised that people are not applauding your action? If you don't want to receive blame for your report here, then think about what you report here and who you drag here. The first line at the top of this page is "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.": you reported three inactive edit warriors who had no recent violations of any rule, and one editor who reverted socks and one user who was basically for that sock, you. What you could have done was ask for page protection (though this was hardly needed before you stepped in), and/or preferably join the discussion on the talk page. Everything else was just stirring up trouble, causing a lot of wasted time, an unnecessary protection of the page, and unhappy editors. Fram (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Otaku 48 reported by User:Debiit (Result: )
Page: Manami Oku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Otaku 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [40]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]
Comments:
The user shows an obsessive fanaticism towars the person and keeps adding irrelevant/unreferenced information, even after warning. The article is about a living person, but the user adds information and facts about the band which the artist used to be part of. Not to mention that adding "half asian, half white" is not only totally inappropriate for Wiki standars, but for the person himself. Debiit (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- User had not been specifically warned about 3RR. I just warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:91.169.1.118 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: )
Page: Bimetric gravity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.169.1.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
The talk-page situation started in a bad place, with an IP editor promising to go around the community consensus by reinstating material that had been found unsuitable. I replied, trying to strike a firm note without being confrontational, though my impatience doubtless showed through. The anon IP came back with a demand, which I tried in good faith to meet, despite being pretty confident it would be pointless. And indeed, despite my evaluating a whole heap of spurious sources, they claimed in an edit summary that I don't want to discuss on Talk page
. Believe me, I'd rather be having a cordial chat over there than making a report here, but I don't think any further conversation there would be cordial at all. And since I was warned for edit warring by a diligent page patroller, I recognize that my exasperation might well lead me over the line on this one, so I'd rather take it to a noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and over on Talk:Bimetric gravity, the anon IP has accused me of vandalizing the page out of a personal vendetta. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments:
An anonymous IP-jumping editor has been trying to own the page bimetric gravity, so much so that an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. They edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; they went on to revert again. That is, in a nutshell, what WP:BRD says not to do.
Other IPs that I strongly suspect resolve to the same individual: 145.242.20.220, 80.214.73.185, 80.215.96.179, 80.215.97.25 and 80.215.224.16. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- And also 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:పగలబడి నవ్వుట reported by User:Gazoth (Result: indef-blocked)
Page: HAL Tejas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/889443765
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/889444801
- Special:Diff/889445917
- Special:Diff/889620580
- Special:Diff/889622510
- Special:Diff/889623706
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/889446957 and Special:Diff/889447677
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/889445239
Comments:
The reverts are just outside the 24-hour window, but the editor has declared that they will not respect consensus and continue to edit war. —Gazoth (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Nick Thorne reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: No violation)
Page: Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick Thorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]
Comments:
I know that 3RR hasn't technically been violated, but it's clear that the user isn't going to stop. Of course, I could have restored the original version first and waited for the edit to get reverted, but I don't see much point in doing that.
As to the talk page, one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected. Furthermore, it is a clear grammatical error, which is not too hard to spot, and which I have explained twice in my edit summaries. I have then implemented this change and added the word "thus". However, Nick Thorne kept reverting the edit without starting a discussion on the talk page, and when the discussion was eventually started, after 3 reverts, it just told me to justify the change ([57]) and insisted there was no error.
I believe these reverts were definitely not made in good faith, as my version is also acceptable (in that it doesn't have any grammatical errors in them), and a good-faith editor would never start edit-warring over an acceptable edit, especially such an insignificant one. However, even if they were, they were still not constructive and persistent, which is why I believe Nick Thorne should get a temporary ban.OlJa 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Firstly, I have not violated 3RR and I clearly indicated on the talk page that I would not. The OP posted this report while I was writing my last response on the talk page here. My reverst have had edit summaries explaining why they were being made and pointing the OP to the talk page. Their responses have been cambatitive. The diff for the "Attempt to resolve dispute" was to a discussion I was not even involed in. The reporting editor's recent history on the page in question shows a pattern of battleground behaviour and disputes with multiple editors. If anyone is involved in an edit war it is them. This is all I have to say on this subject. - Nick Thorne talk 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- No violation. I note the comment "one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected". Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false. At least four other editors apart from Nick Thorne (User:Roxy the dog, User:Rododendrites, User:Doug Weller and User:Dave souza) have objected to all or some of your various changes. I would strongly suggest that you go back to that talk page and try to form a consensus for your edits, rather than attempting to edit-war them into the article without one. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)