→User:Netoholic reported by User:Bilorv (Result: ): more details |
, |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 512: | Line 512: | ||
[[WP:3RR|3RR is not an entitlement]] and Netoholic has deliberately gone up to 3RR twice. Six reverts in just over 48 hours against three other editors is edit warring. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC) |
[[WP:3RR|3RR is not an entitlement]] and Netoholic has deliberately gone up to 3RR twice. Six reverts in just over 48 hours against three other editors is edit warring. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
Bilorv and other editors are edit warring to push a "closure" of a WikiProject proposal listed at [[WP:WikiProject Council]]. Such proposals are listed to gather interest in WikiProjects, and some are listed for several years while gathering contacts with potential participants. They are generally only ''archived'' after the proposed WikiProjects launch, or when a proposer has withdrawn it or gone inactive. There is no procedure for an outside group to "close" such a proposal - even one they dislike. Imagine if instead we were talking about WikiProjects related to rival sports teams, or countries, or political ideologies. It is RIDICULOUS to think some few outside people could come in a "close" such a proposal. This proposal has been listed only about 6 weeks, whereas one can easily see several at [[WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals]] have been listed for ''years''. This "close" by an [[WP:INVOLVED]] non-admin (and subsequent reverts by other INVOLVED participants) is completely against standard procedure on that page. This proposal has been the subject of several occasions of [[WP:GAMING]] by this same set of editors, and this is just more of the same. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 11:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:27, 9 July 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: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 ([1]): "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 ([2]). Furthermore, I placed the following message on the article's Talk page ([3]): "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. ([4]) (5) I reverted his edit, asking him in the edit summary to address the problems. ([5]) (6) Rgvis reverted my edit ([6]). (7) I transformed the article into a redirect page ([7]). 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 ([8]), and (9) I reverted his edit, again drawing his attention to the Talk page debate ([9]). 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 ([10]). (10) Rgvis reverted my edit, saying that he wants to protect the content of the article. ([11]) (11) I restored the short version of the article, asking for verification. ([12]). (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)
- Did you mean a lazy or negligent editor? An editor who protects OR and ready to engage in an edit war for it can hardly be described as constructive, because OR contradicts one of the principal pillars of our community. Sorry, I stop debating this issue on this page. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 8 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: [13]
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: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: [27]
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)
- Britishfinance, read the comment above for some context on why Wikipedia policy and admin practices are stacked against regular veteran editors. This is one reason why veteran editors just give up. This is the first edit-warring noticeboard case I've filed in forever, and I only did so because the other editor grotesquely violated it (clear 3RR vio, multiple warnings stretched over weeks, zero attempt to discuss on the talk page) and signaled an intent to continue doing so. Yet, the admin gives the other editor a slap on the wrist, and chastises me for filing the case. This is one reason why bad editors and bad editing persist, and why regular veteran editors have to give up and let the bad editors win. The solution in this case should have apparently been for me to let the other editor bully the content into the article, while I spend all eternity talking to myself on the article's talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- If Dcflyer grotesquely violated it, you're one revert away from grotesquely violating it. I wouldn't say that paints you as innocent. You reverted 3 times on an article under discretionary sanctions - that's bad judgement. 48 hours for a 1st edit war is pretty consistent with this project. Since this sat untouched for hours, I chose to act because a clear bright line was crossed. Apparently you do not appreciate a volunteer's time, next time I'll let it sit because it appears no other admin was interested in helping you out here.--v/r - TP 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- (1) I had no clue the article was under DS. (2) The grotesque violations concern more than just the 3RR violation, but it's very informative to know that no one would have done anything about the brazen nature of the edit-warring unless for the 3RR violation. Britishfinance, imagine if I had taken to this noticeboard to deal with the CIS sockpuppetry problems and edit-warring: If I had, I'd likely have been the one blocked for having reverted the sockpuppets 2-3 times whereas the editors who were blatantly not editing in good faith would have essentially gotten away scot-free. And I did consider bringing ModerateMikayla/Mike (one of the most prominent CIS socks) to this board when the editor violated 3RR on two separate occasions, but decided against it, precisely because of the [expected] response above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: stale)
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)
- It is true that my area of interest is Indian TV actors, but i'm not creating the pages for any financial profit, nor as an agent of any organisation. I am a great of Indian television serials fan and i create the pages of those television actors who do not have an official wiki page. i also created these pages of TV actors because personally i do respect their acting skills, you can cross check with any of the actors of whom i've created the pages whether they know me personally, or any with any organisation they are linked with. Moreover, if i had a financial profit , it would have easy for me get their photographs added to the pages, since i had been uploading images from internet, i was blocked from commons. It was not just a child's play to create these pages, i had researched through various articles online collected information all different sources possible to give the best of the data possible. --Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol
- In fact i had no intention to cause an edit disruption, since i had already been warned of disruption earlier for [[[Bhumika Gurung]], i had sent a message to Emaus who had last redicted this page before i started editing asking her permission to recreate a new page which can seen in the following link *, and moreover since i did not want personal editing disruption with other editors, i did send a talk message to Etzedek24 which is given in the link provided *. And as noted by a previous editor i'm not a potential sock of SKS. i had just been editing the mistakes of other editors and providing new valuable information into new wikipedia pages which is the right of any editor on wikipedia.--Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol
- Comment: Bbb23 (or other admins), any comment? This has been here for a few days now. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Stale. But 3RR was not violated (only three reverts listed). Seems to be resolved, anyway. El_C 05:08, 9 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)
- <refacted> Edf55 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Matt Campbell (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Edf55, you've been asked several times now to conduct talk page messages in English. Please do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- <redacted> Edf55 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please do not make accusations against other people that breach our Wikipedia:Libel policy. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- <refacted> Edf55 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Vasanthy546576 reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Blocked)
- 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)
- Blocked Indeff as sockpuppet by User:Bbb23.--v/r - TP 23:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Hhggtg3279 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Spider-Man: Far From Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Hhggtg3279 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Mines fine lord"
- 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Who are you the king of the internet? There isn’t any specific rule that sas under act so and so that bullet points can only be used for stars, because the fact is they and still characters that were portrayed with motion capture"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC) to 08:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */This isn't Wikipedia and you've edited multiple times"
- 08:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 08:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 07:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC) to 07:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- 07:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 07:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 07:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) to 06:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- 06:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 06:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 23:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- 19:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Persistent reverts and edit warring without listening to reason. Also disruptive editing and name calling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Talk page access disabled after telling me to fuck off in response to the block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
User:SHINGO154 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Sock indeffed)
- Page
- João Félix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SHINGO154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "stop making disruptive editings"
- 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "stop please youre the only one who as a problem with the images and if they don't have the right licenses why don't reupload it with the right license this really is not necessary"
- 14:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "There are no problems with images beacause the license its equal to allison becker image so to delete the images of João Félix you will have to delete the image of allison becker"
- 12:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion */"
- Comments:
After having some of its uploads deleted from Commons for license laundering, user SHINGO154 re-uploaded those images and re-added them to João Félix. User also added a new image, making it the 4th copyright violation. SLBedit (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Dftyapo and User:17 kutalmis bercin reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: Both blocked)
Page: OpenFOAM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Dftyapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 17 kutalmis bercin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Dftyapo's Reverts:
17 kutalmis bercin's Reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Dftyapo: [60], 17 kutalmis bercin [61]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]
Comments:
Both users are being very disruptive, although User:17 kutalmis bercin at least reached out to the talk page... I get the feeling that his native language is not English. Requesting page protection and a block on both users. I am uninvolved. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Update: seems like my messages to them may have stopped the edit war. Hopefully both of them will calm down. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The errors ixntroduced by 17 kutalmis bercin are serious, how can they be corrected without him reverting the changes? Dftyapo —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
User:41.190.12.74 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Abdulrazaq Atunwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 41.190.12.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
There are at least eight more on a slightly different IP as well. Ifnord (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User:R.Saringer reported by User:mm.srb (Result: Sock indeffed)
User:R.Saringer reported by User:mm.srb
- Page
- Rascians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- R.Saringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905173077&oldid=904002220&diffmode=source (-17.000 without a reason)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905315403&oldid=905314474&diffmode=source
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905319528&oldid=905317875&diffmode=source
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905383853&oldid=905380840&diffmode=source
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905395661&oldid=905395270&diffmode=source
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R.Saringer#Rascians_2
I hope that this way the report is okay, this is the frist one for me. Mm.srb (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:OskarJacobsen (Result: Malformed)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
User keeps deleting the following section: "In October 2018, a few days after he was nominated as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in Kwara State, the Premium Times newspaper reported that Atunwa did not take part in the mandatory National Youth Service. The paper further reported that Atunwa forged a certificate of exemption https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/291705-exclusive-sarakis-anointed-candidate-for-kwara-governorship-razak-atunwa-skips-nysc-forges-certificate.html. The politician denied the allegations, but did not institute any legal action against the investigative newspaper"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Abdulrazaq_Atunwa [diff]
- 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) 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Fleets reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Fleets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "infobox"
- 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "infobox"
- 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "rv to last good version"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Russell Crowe. (TW)"
- Comments:
Clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (this response to my warning should give you an indication). This user does make constructive edits, but I think they're being purely disruptive here, putting in the same edit summary ("infobox") and not explaining their edits, which I think go against the norm (removing caption, including countries in state links, etc.). 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 03:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Was just going back to the version that worked best. Left it alone as not interested in edit warring.Fleets (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Page protected. You're both being ridiculous, making edits and reversions without actual explanations or attempts at communication. I'd be justified in blocking you both, but will refrain from sullying your clean block logs. If you would like to continue this dispute, take the next two weeks to communicate with each other on the talk page. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, it is a clear case of both being short, and have no interest in edit warring. All I wanted was a more up to date image as the first thing seen. Am happy with whatever anyone wants to do with the Rusty's infobox and wouldn't want to rob anyone of the chance to improve the article.Fleets (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Swarm, two weeks is probably a bit too long in my opinion, but I appreciate your involvement nevertheless. I don't believe I was edit warring (and had no intention of doing so either), rather that I was reverting edits I thought were genuinely disruptive, but others might see it differently, so I can understand your perspective, and I didn't do enough to explain why I thought the edits were disruptive. Fleets, I appreciate you not wanting to continue the dispute, but if the image (which is only a month newer and, in my opinion, inferior as a lead image) is the only thing you were worried about, why did you continue with the changes to the infobox? 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 06:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Netoholic reported by User:Bilorv (Result: )
- Page
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905475833 by Bilorv (talk) absolutely no policy or WP:WikiProject Council procedure being followed in regards to this "closure" Proposal shall remain active while gathering list of participants"
- 10:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905457360 by Bilorv (talk) rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure" - WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
- 02:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure" - WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
- 15:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905198336 by MJL (talk) there is no WikiProject Council process which uses such a "closure"."
- 15:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905192059 by MJL (talk) out of process "closure""
- 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904854642 by MJL (talk) rvt. the "closed" proposal is in the page history. This is a restarted/reworded proposal. Such WikiProject Council proposals are almost never "closed" even after a very long time, see others"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"
- 15:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute
- Comments:
3RR is not an entitlement and Netoholic has deliberately gone up to 3RR twice. Six reverts in just over 48 hours against three other editors is edit warring. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv and other editors are edit warring to push a "closure" of a WikiProject proposal listed at WP:WikiProject Council. Such proposals are listed to gather interest in WikiProjects, and some are listed for several years while gathering contacts with potential participants. They are generally only archived after the proposed WikiProjects launch, or when a proposer has withdrawn it or gone inactive. There is no procedure for an outside group to "close" such a proposal - even one they dislike. Imagine if instead we were talking about WikiProjects related to rival sports teams, or countries, or political ideologies. It is RIDICULOUS to think some few outside people could come in a "close" such a proposal. This proposal has been listed only about 6 weeks, whereas one can easily see several at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals have been listed for years. This "close" by an WP:INVOLVED non-admin (and subsequent reverts by other INVOLVED participants) is completely against standard procedure on that page. This proposal has been the subject of several occasions of WP:GAMING by this same set of editors, and this is just more of the same. -- Netoholic @ 11:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)