Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) |
Alexis Jazz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 713: | Line 713: | ||
:Abdallem isn't backing down and continues to insert his copyvio image in the article, even after this report. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) |
:Abdallem isn't backing down and continues to insert his copyvio image in the article, even after this report. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
::There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key player, and it appears that u:Abdallem has a [[WP:Conflict of Interest]], as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC) |
::There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key player, and it appears that u:Abdallem has a [[WP:Conflict of Interest]], as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Buckshot06}} Are you confusing {{U|AmirahBreen}} and {{U|Abdallem}} or did I miss something? — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:PlainAndSimpleTailor ]] reported by [[User:FDW777]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:PlainAndSimpleTailor ]] reported by [[User:FDW777]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 17:06, 2 February 2021
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )
Page: Lai Đại Hàn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "sexual assault is disputed so it should not be referred to as a given in the lede"
- 10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "reverted stable into language, follow WP:BRD and take it to Talk Page, some are due to sexual assault, some are due to wartime romances, all covered in detail further down in the article"
- 09:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003084177 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) not colorful at all, stop edit-warring"
- 09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003083377 by XiAdonis (talk) not sneaking anything, Lai Dai Han are a pressure group and Straw's role is irrelevant to the points being made; stop edit warring of you will be blocked"
- 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003082024 by XiAdonis (talk) the link doesn't exist, they are a pressure group and Jack Straw is irrelevant; take it to Talk per BRD, don't edit war"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 and User:XiAdonis against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- As soon as he made this comment, he proceeds to revert my edit. Which was fairly neutral; I was summarizing the key issues in the article he took issue with. Here # https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003087709&oldid=1003087213 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
From 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC): Here are a few more edits the user did, he has a history of guarding certain pages, blocking all edits. On just that page, Lai Dai Han alone, he engaged in several edit wars with several users. seems to have an agenda in denying reports of sexual assault and calling it 'wartime romances' and other colorful, bizarre language. also keeps accusing me of being another user and thinks I am edit warring him when I have not reverted his edits a 2nd or 3rd time.
Worth noting that the user seemingly intentionally talks past me in my talk with him, making it less of a talk and more of a monologue. 8ya (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003083830&oldid=1003083377
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003082654&oldid=1003082024
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003040099&oldid=1003038211
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003084519&oldid=1003084177
Early in Dec, on same page with another user.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995856771&oldid=995850902
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995843379&oldid=995755451
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995678073&oldid=995641103
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995537507&oldid=995487722
Early in Dec again, another user.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994716074&oldid=994629232
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994176258&oldid=994169457
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994167554&oldid=994161816
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994142307&oldid=994086245
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=988485830&oldid=988378952
- As can be seen from the above diffs this IP and others (who I believe are all socks) have been periodically edit-warring the page, while I have tried to maintain an NPOV and remove biased material. I have opened the SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The logic is. "If they disagree with me, they must be a sock." I am just going to stop there. I am already quite disgusted with you, since you have the audacity to just conduct original research and characterize things reported by BBCNews as fake information, and labelling reported sexual assault as 'wartime romances'. Clearly you never understood what romance means if you want to believe that. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- On reviewing my edit history I see that I inadvertently breached 3RR by reverting the IP after reverting the same point 3 times. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it was inadvertent. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- It should be noted that after being HOUNDED on my Talk Page by XiAdonis: User talk:Mztourist#NOR, 3RR & NPOV violations on Lai Đại Hàn page, I addressed the various issues on the Lai Dai Han Talk Page: [1] and the IP deleted my Talk Page comments: [2] which is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attempting to discuss a content dispute does not mean you're being "HOUNDED". The issue at hand here is you edit warring not whatever grievencanes you have with other editors please stay on topic. XiAdonis (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I told you to stay off my Talk Page and you ignored me, that is harassment/Hounding. You were warned about this by another uninvolved User as well: [3] even despite that you continued to post of my Talk Page: [4]. Content disputes are discussed on the Article Talk page, not a User's Talk Page. Unlike you, I raised the discussion on the Article Talk Page and the IP deleted it. I reinstated the discussion and you have only engaged on 1 of 3 points, raising an argument that I believe has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attempting to discuss a content dispute does not mean you're being "HOUNDED". The issue at hand here is you edit warring not whatever grievencanes you have with other editors please stay on topic. XiAdonis (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It should be noted that after being HOUNDED on my Talk Page by XiAdonis: User talk:Mztourist#NOR, 3RR & NPOV violations on Lai Đại Hàn page, I addressed the various issues on the Lai Dai Han Talk Page: [1] and the IP deleted my Talk Page comments: [2] which is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it was inadvertent. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- On reviewing my edit history I see that I inadvertently breached 3RR by reverting the IP after reverting the same point 3 times. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The logic is. "If they disagree with me, they must be a sock." I am just going to stop there. I am already quite disgusted with you, since you have the audacity to just conduct original research and characterize things reported by BBCNews as fake information, and labelling reported sexual assault as 'wartime romances'. Clearly you never understood what romance means if you want to believe that. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- As can be seen from the above diffs this IP and others (who I believe are all socks) have been periodically edit-warring the page, while I have tried to maintain an NPOV and remove biased material. I have opened the SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Raymond3023 reported by User:Walrus Ji (Result: no violation)
Page: 2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003768701 by Walrus Ji (talk) don't use misleading edit summaries and address concerns on talk page"
- 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Revert recently added POV write up"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"
- 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ Note"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
- 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
- 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
Comments: This user along with another [5] has been repeatedly removing sourced content and references from the article. He is only posting one liners saying "problem exist" without specifying them, I have asked them 3 times now but it seems they are only interested in disrupting the page. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No violation. Also, Walrus Ji, WP:FORUMSHOPPING is a bad look. El_C 16:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- El C, Noted. But please understand that I had made this Edit war report 'before' I had checked his talk page history about the Discretionary sanctions. At that point I did not know that there was a topic ban on this user. Had I known then I would have not reported him here. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Walrus Ji reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: Warned)
Page: 2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walrus Ji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [7] 19:03, 29 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,526 bytes +483 restore other sources that were added by GSS
- [8] 19:23, 29 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,526 bytes −487 Restoring revision 1003594243 by Walrus Ji: One of the source is opinion. I have already disputed this on the talk page. please do not add back. Kindly share neutral international source for this incident on the talk page (RW 16)
- [9] 09:48, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,759 bytes +59 The claim needs to be mentioned other wise it is not clear why the post mortem report is relevant here. See talk page.
- [10] 11:11, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,759 bytes +419 Reverting edit(s) by Accesscrawl (talk) to rev. 1003716401 by Walrus Ji: Reverting good faith edits, I edited as I meant it to be. Deep Sidhu, death of protestor have all
- [11] 15:51, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,999 bytes +367 Add details, See the discussion about Sidhu in talk page
- [12] 16:04, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,186 bytes +3,486 Remove refs that are over cited with better source already
- [13] 16:10, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,300 bytes +3,600 Add details undo Tag: Reverted
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[14]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[15][16]
Comments:
The 7 reverts in less than 24 hours above show that this user is really WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is retaliatory filing in response to my thread above. These diffs are not reverts and all of them involve content different to each other. Also is should be noted that the difs 1,2,3 were already discussed on the talk page and resolved with GSS. Diff 4,5 was also resolved with explanation on the talk page. Dif 6 and 7 were caused due to Raymond3023 edit warring and causing edit conflicts while I was adding more content to the article. After adding my cotnent and resolving the edit conflict I did not make any further reverts or edits on the page. On the other hand Raymond3023's only contribution so far on this page is to edit war and remove sourced content without specifying the problem despite being asked. At the time of this writing Raymond3023 has still not explained what specific problems they have with the content. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- And reverting by Walrus Ji continues on this article as seenhere today. This comes after this report and also after "advise" provided by El C to Walrus Ji on ARE.[17] Raymond3023 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- And Unlike you I did not start another edit war, but called the concerned editor to the talk page for a CIVIL discussion at Talk:2021_Farmers'_Republic_Day_parade#Government_attempt. The same thread where you have joined with personal attacks against me which is a misuse of WP:TPO Walrus Ji (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Warned. Walrus Ji, in your aforementioned AE complaint, I noted to you that you should: respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially for a page that is covered by the WP:ARBIPA WP:ACDS regime.
Also, please do not make accusations about personal attack without citing proof in the form of diff-evidence. Failure to do so counts as an WP:ASPERSION, which is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Nutrisystem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "removing synthesis per previous, extensive discussion"
- 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003793616 by Alexbrn (talk) removing unsourced label. Can be re-added if a reliable source is shown referring to nutrisystem as a "fad diet.""
- 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003774153 by Alexbrn (talk) Removing OR, synthesis, other biased editing"
- 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003773069 by Alexbrn (talk) We just had a discussion in which you agreed that your "better" version entails synthesis and OR."
- 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "removing OR ("tentative evidence") and synthesis. Making language clearer and more specific."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nutrisystem."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Tendentious editing by Alexbrn */ not really following the spirit of the DR recommendation, this"
Comments:
- Hi, the problem here is that the reporting editor keeps inserting edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:OR. (This was the conclusion at a recent Dispute resolution post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nutrisystem.) I am regrettably obliged to correct his tendentious and policy-violating edits. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I ask that any admin who is considering sanctioning me for edit warring please carefully read the dispute resolution noticeboard posting, as it will confirm that OP is engaged in policy-violating edits, and therefore will tend to exonerate or at least mitigate my conduct, in attempting to revert him. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would also ask User:Robert_McClenon to comment on this matter, because he knows about the edits and sources in question. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note, reported user has now gone to 6RR with this edit.[18] Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- This wasn't a reversion. It was a copy edit+adding more context behind the quotation. I kept the quotation and the information about the majority of people re-gaining weight, but simply added more context from the same source. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- And now PaleoNeonate's edit has been partially undone.[19] Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's absurd. No content was removed. Although my tone was sharp in the edit summary, it was simply a copy edit. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- You removed a time-specific "asof" template (used to alert to the need for update), and the information that these prices are USA-specific. This damages the encyclopedia. Your rampaging revert-spree is creating disruption now, and the need for further work from editors down the line. I also note that you have introduced WP:CLOP in your use of the Gale source. This will need editorial work by others to remedy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's absurd. No content was removed. Although my tone was sharp in the edit summary, it was simply a copy edit. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Both editors are edit-warring. (Edit-warring usually takes two editors.) I recommend that both editors be partially blocked from the article for an extended period. I was trying to offer an opinion as to whether particular edits accurately summarized the results of a systematic review, and the proposed edits had the nature of synthesis amounting to original research. A neutral editor should edit the Nutrisystem article to say exactly what the systematic review says, nothing more, nothing less. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's a tad harsh to equate the edit-warring, since I consciously stepped-back from attempting to modify the systematic review text after two different tries, and concentrated instead on fresh sourcing and article expansion (IME, the way out of disputes is usually via improving the sourcing/content). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08's continuing reversion have been of these, and of edits by another editor. However, I hear what you say, have unwatched the article, and will happily observe a self-imposed ban from editing Nutrisystem and Talk:Nutrisystem for 12 months. Other editors are aware of article so I'm sure all will come good in the end. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no problem with a topic ban from Nutrisystem provided that it is also applied to Alexbrn. My concern is his tendentious editing and OR (which, I am pleased to say, RObert McClenon has just reverted); I have no real interest in the Nutrisystem page. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 week. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 has been blocked from Nutrisystem for two weeks. LLNE, don't edit war even if you think you're right, and, especially, don't violate 3RR. Bishonen | tålk 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Mr. bobby (Result: )
Page: Padre Pio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafaelosornio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The WP-user Rafaelosornio reverts all of my new changes and information in the article Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Rafaelosornio cites at lenght the version of Pio. This is Original Research. Rafaelosornio does not cite secundary literature, but lets Pio speak
Again, a giant quotation. Original Research. Pio asserting he can bilocate!
R. cites the Castelli-book and asserts it as a source which documents fifty (!) years of blood flowing, that smells like perfume. Absurd! (This is what Pio might have told his audience.)
R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian (sic!) collection of primary sources (by Rossi or Pio). Who translated that? Rafaelosornio???
R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian collection of primary sources, this time citing Pio. Obviouslys Rafaelosorni translates form Italian (is he able to understand Italian?) ino English (is he able to understand English???) Thereby he contradicts the depiction of Luzzatto and deletes it without any discussion! This an act of vandalism.
Rafaelosornio deletes a whole source, claiming it would not be correct. But HE is the one who says that and deletes it - without any discussion!
Another source says exactly the same as Urte Krass: https://cfitampabay.org/news/padre_pio_scandals_of_a_saint/ So you cannot simply take this out. Besides Pio was supporting the upcoming fascism.
Again, Rafaelosornio translates Italian into English without any hint to this process. This is misleading any reader.
And several further destructive changes without any consent.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Response to the accusation
- The user "Mr. bobby" in question does not accept any other source but only that of Luzzatto's book as if this book were the absolute truth. I have already told him that Wikipedia is a neutral place, where other reliable sources are allowed. The article is about Padre Pio, it is not only about Luzzatto's book, but he wants to eliminate all sources other than Luzzatto's book.
- By the way, the user (whose native language is German and has little knowledge of English) cites an article in German of dubious origin which quotes Luzzatto saying that Padre Pio was a follower of Mussolini, but in Luzzatto's book not said phrase comes.
- He accuses me of being a fundamentalist only because I quote the texts of other authors and of the same inquisitors of Padre Pio. The only fundamentalist is this user who does not accept anything that is in favor of Padre Pio, but only accepts everything that is against him. He clings to eliminate all content in favor of Padre Pio, said content is not mine, but the authors and documents of the Holy Office. You can see the conversations that I have had with this guy and the behavior of this user on the "Padre Pio Talk Page". Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Both have broken 3RR as shown in the diffs in a below section where I reported both editors. WP:AN3#User:Mr. bobby & User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: ). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I admit to have broken the 3RR. But I have to add that some days befor I have reported Rafaelosornio for reverting my work without any discussion. And nothing happened! So I could not help but revert his religious remarks. The article needs help by a third, neutral party. Every change of Rafaelosornio hast to be discussed. He simply adds suprnatural assertions and fundamentalist Points of View. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I remind you that the Wikipedia article is not yours. If something that is properly referenced, you don't have to delete it only because you don't like. I have already spoken to you on Padre Pio's Talk Page. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. Clearly you have a conflict of interest.Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:91.237.86.201 reported by User:E-960 (Result: )
Page: FB MSBS Grot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:91.237.86.201
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts (I): Initial reverts done by IP:91.237.86.201 on 26 January, 2021.
Diffs of the user's reverts (II): IP:91.237.86.201 again restored the disputed text on 30-31 January, 2021 — in order to avoid more disruptions to the page after the initial flare-up, I did not revert these latest edits and reported IP's new attempt at restoring the reverted text.
Diffs of the user's reverts (III): IP:91.237.86.201 is again engaged in an edit war and restored the disputed text on 1 February 2021 — after it was reverted by another editor. Again, there is no consensus to include this text.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]
Comments:
IP:91.237.86.201 continues to insert disputed text to the FB MSBS Grot rifle article. It was explained to the IP why the text was reverted (for reasons primarily related to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight concerns). Also, the IP user was asked to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle approach and discuss the disputed text on the talk page, where a couple of other editors also joined in on the discussion.
Also, IP used vulgar language to respond to comments by other editors (I blanked out the curse words): "its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle" [38], "Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t" [39], "Response from Ministry is bulls..t" [40]. At this point, there is no consensus on the article's talk page for the inclusion of the disputed text, and other editors involved in the ongoing discussion either think that all of IP's text is problematic or at least parts of it. --E-960 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Response to the accusation
- My sources are high quality like Defence24[1] and Milmag[2] military magazines together with FB Radom - producer of Grot rifle. All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer, they even has already started repairing all defective Grot M1 rifles by upgrading to the improved M2 version. Ukraine is looking on AR15 type rifle with weight under 3,26 kg. Grot don’t meet this requirements. Wpolityce and TVP are fake political news pages. This means that the allegations are unfounded and the user E-960 is trolling, making vandalism and removing content from page. More in article talk page [[41]]--91.237.86.201 (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- hmm... your source Defence24.pl[42] states that: "Referring to the article by Onet, FB Radom [manufacturer] issued a statement in which it stated that the article was unreliable and mislead the public opinion. Since, before the first delivery of the carbines to WOT in December 2017, all technical and legal requirements were met." Yet, above you wrote "All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer". So, it appears that your statement above as well as your article edits are inaccurate and carry a potential bias, as well as undue weight. Also, the article talks about the rifle in use by the Polish Territorial Defense Forces (WOT) and nothing about Ukraine. Misrepresenting sources and what they say is harmful to Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are lier because your source is diferent than my, yours is older and is misrepresenting because this statemant is older than my source[3]. If problems don’t exist why manufacturer has started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version? About Ukraine you are writing above, and they are writing in diferent source [4]My contributions to Wikipedia have long history. --91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...and one of those articles talks about Ukraine looking for a new service rifle, and nothing about MSBS Grot. While the other one talks about how to "improve its [MSBS Gort] parameters" not "problems" as you put it. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- It mean you are lier writing in talk that Grot was in fight in the market on Ukraine, because Grot even don’t meet Ukrainian requirements for new service rifles. Described problems and defects in variant M1 and changes in improved M2 variant are not parameters..--91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...and one of those articles talks about Ukraine looking for a new service rifle, and nothing about MSBS Grot. While the other one talks about how to "improve its [MSBS Gort] parameters" not "problems" as you put it. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are lier because your source is diferent than my, yours is older and is misrepresenting because this statemant is older than my source[3]. If problems don’t exist why manufacturer has started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version? About Ukraine you are writing above, and they are writing in diferent source [4]My contributions to Wikipedia have long history. --91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- hmm... your source Defence24.pl[42] states that: "Referring to the article by Onet, FB Radom [manufacturer] issued a statement in which it stated that the article was unreliable and mislead the public opinion. Since, before the first delivery of the carbines to WOT in December 2017, all technical and legal requirements were met." Yet, above you wrote "All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer". So, it appears that your statement above as well as your article edits are inaccurate and carry a potential bias, as well as undue weight. Also, the article talks about the rifle in use by the Polish Territorial Defense Forces (WOT) and nothing about Ukraine. Misrepresenting sources and what they say is harmful to Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- My sources are high quality like Defence24[1] and Milmag[2] military magazines together with FB Radom - producer of Grot rifle. All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer, they even has already started repairing all defective Grot M1 rifles by upgrading to the improved M2 version. Ukraine is looking on AR15 type rifle with weight under 3,26 kg. Grot don’t meet this requirements. Wpolityce and TVP are fake political news pages. This means that the allegations are unfounded and the user E-960 is trolling, making vandalism and removing content from page. More in article talk page [[41]]--91.237.86.201 (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Follow up note to Admins
IP:91.237.86.201, again today (1 Feb, 21) re-added the disputed text after it was removed by another editor, here: [43]. At this point IP has continued to edit war and engaged in the use of profanity during the discussions (as noted above in an earlier comment) and personal attacks calling me a "lier" here: [44] and [45], the IP is still not sanctioned, and in the last 36 hours made over 40 edits to the article. --E-960 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza
- ^ https://www.milmag.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=48&page=6
- ^ https://www.defence24.pl/system-broni-modulowej-grot--eksploatacja-wazna-faza-rozwoju-analiza
- ^ https://www.defence24.pl/ukraina-kupuje-bron-strzelecka-w-standardzie-nato
User:ElPikacupacabra reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: )
Page: Anima Anandkumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElPikacupacabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003976348 by Schazjmd (talk) See my comments in the talk page."
- 14:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003962868 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) See talk page."
- 14:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003957760 by Tunkki-1970 (talk)"
- 14:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003955336 by Tunkki-1970 (talk Please see comment in Talk page.)"
- 14:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003953462 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Content does not violate BLP policies in any way. Please show precisely how policy is violated if you disagree. There is nothing stated that is false. Topic is of relevance."
- 13:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003945386 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Don't remove section until the consensus in the talk page supports your position. The default is to keep content unless there is a good reason to remove it."
- 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003944584 by Tunkki-1970 (talk Indeed. Let's move this to the talk page. But don't delete content in the mean time.)"
- 12:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003938552 by Tunkki-1970 (talk Prev. edit misunderstands NPOV and general policy. The source merely has to be reliable and support the wiki text. The wiki must and should be NPOV, but sources will have varying quality. (If only NPOV sources were allowed, Wikipedia could never have biographies.) The text you are deleting is stating uncontroversial facts. Please refrain from deleting content you don't like.)"
- 11:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003353218 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Removing content for spurious accusations of bias in sources should be frowned upon. Nobody disputes the reality of this controversy, or its impact in the field."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anima Anandkumar."
- 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "onus"
- 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "blp ds awareness"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ Quillette status on RSPS"
- 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ Geekwire"
- 18:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ not due"
- 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ sum up"
Comments:
Post-3EW warning, added disputed content back manually and reworded so it wouldn't appear as a revert: [46] (Tunkki-1970 also exceeded 3 reverts in one day, but has not reverted since being warned.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Appologies for the multiple reverts, I though someone was vandalising the page because they didn't like the old content for political reasons. Since I am new, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert-rule. However, the comment above is wrong. At the end I did not add the disputed content again manually. I added newly written content (on the same topic of course), but consistent with all the rules. Faulty sources were removed, as was concluded from the discussion on the talk page. Please compare. ElPikacupacabra (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
User:2db reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )
Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2db (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [47]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]
Comments:
- While the four reverts aren't identical (it's a 2x2) the core content of all four is the same, making it a rather clear violation. All four are about trying to push a fringe theory as academically respectable by referring to one lone fringe scholar, against consensus. Needless to say, this is about edit warring and not content, so the edit warring would be wrong even if the user would be right. Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. User:2db violated the 3RR on the article. There already is a talk page discussion, but he continued to revert. I gave him the warning because 2db is not following wikipedia protocol. Basically he has one source that makes a passing claim from 1 fringe author (who is a no expert on the topic) and wants to eliminate the views of at least 10 mainstream experts on the topic. The consensus is not on his side so he is trying to push his edit through.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Dervenagas reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )
Page: Saint Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dervenagas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]
Comments: – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an {{ew}} notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my User Talk page (Diff 3) – User:Dervenagas has been warned of disruptive behavior previously on their User Talk Page and unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF and WP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – User:Dervenagas has also been warned about edit warring on their User Talk page on the article Derbe – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment I came across this intense edit war as I follow many articles on early Christianity, though I haven't interacted with anyone involved myself. It's a rater sorry example of a typical edit war with both sides being at fault. User:Dervenegas violates several core polices, including violating 3RR and repeatedly attacking other users. They definitely deserve a break. User:Elizium23 also deserves a break (probably a shorter one) for edit warring. While a strict wiki-lawyer might argue Elizium23 did not violate 3RR, I have no time for users gaming the system by reverting three times themselves and then report the other side for the fourth revert. (I believe Elizium23 is correct on content, but Dervenegas edits are not vandalism hence reverting them multiple times remains incorrect). Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Elizium23 reported by User:Dervenagas (Result: )
Page: Saint Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]
Comments: : User Elizium23 vandalizes sourced content. He keeps deleting a long standing quote, even after I pointed to the sources (such obvious sources, that nobody ever asked for them) that clearly prove why this quote stands for such a long time. The quote refers to the trust Paul had to Timothy. The aforementioned user Elizium23, for unknown reasons, wants to confuse the reader of the article regarding the trust Paul had to Timothy. Dervenagas (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- – this is a revenge report as User:Elizium23 reported User:Dervenagas for edit warring – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an {{ew}} notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my User Talk page (Diff 3) – as can be seen in the reason for this report, User:Dervenagas unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF and WP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment As outlined above, both User:Dervenegas and User:Elizium23 were edit warring actively and both deserve a break (see my reasoning above). In reply to Epinoia: the fact that somebody else edit wars is not an excuse to edit war in return. You and Elizium23 are right about the content, but not right to edit war. Jeppiz (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:DollyReszka reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )
Page: Hillbilly Elegy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DollyReszka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [63]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
'
Comments:
This appears to be a kid or young adult who is hell-bent on adding his name as an uncredited, unverified cast member to a film article (unsourced of course). He has been reverted by three editors and received numerous warnings. He has made no attempt at communication. On his user page he describes himself as a child actor, but he has no notable roles in film. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Doubledoppler reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doubledoppler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "If you want to block an editor for making accurate edits then god help us"
- 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC) " Do you have any evidence that my edits are inaccurate?"
- 03:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "Dude, what you playing at?"
- 03:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "English please? Undid revision 1004113377 by Moxy (talk)"
- 03:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 03:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Nationhood and change of languages */ new section"
- 03:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Nationhood and change of languages */"
- 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Nationhood and change of languages */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See users talk page
Comments:
We have the same revert problem on England, Scotland and related territories. Editor is talking with a few of us but does not seem willing to abide by our editing policy. Perhaps just protection of the pages involved might be better as they are engaging us. Moxy 🍁 04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Though I agree with parts of the editor-in-question's changes. He's certainly gone about it the wrong way. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Peterungar reported by User:Lowellian (Result: )
Page: Illumination problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peterungar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version before any reverts: July 18, 2020
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- July 30, 2020, later undone by User:Jni [71]
- October 8, 2020, later undone by User:ReyHahn [72]
- October 13, 2020, later undone by User:Lowellian (myself) [73]
- December 3, 2020, later undone by User:Lowellian (myself) [74]
- December 7, 2020, later undone by User:Eridian314 [75]
- January 23, 2021, article as it now stands
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: December 5, 2020
Comments:
The article previously [76] was stable, with proper wikiformatting, images, and many references. User:Peterungar repeatedly replaces the article with his version [77] that is a wall of text with original research, with improper wikiformatting, with few or no images, and almost no references other than a YouTube video and a link to Mathworld's front page which doesn't even discuss the subject. He has been reverted by User:Jni [78], by User:ReyHahn [79], by myself [80], and by User:Eridian314 [81], but despite being reverted by so many different users, he has ignored a request to stop on the article talk page and continues to repeatedly reinstate his version.
The difficulty is that Peterungar never violates 3RR, instead doing long-term edit warring over a period of many months (this has now been going on for half a year) by periodically reverting (Jul 30 Oct 8 Oct 13 Dec 3 Dec 7 Jan 23) the page to his preferred version whenever he visits the page again. Banning Peterungar from editing the article for a few days or even a few weeks might be ineffective given that his edit warring is long-term and spread over months.
—Lowellian (reply) 08:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I was one of the people who reverted Peterungar's edits. He seems to be convinced that the information he put in was correct, despite it being unsourced and not following the Manual Of Style. Not much else for me to say Eridian314 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User: Willbb234 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Page protected)
Page: George Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor is continually reverting about a controversial deceased subject and now at the related police officer's bio as well. No other support to date for their changes on the talk page.
Previous version reverted to (#1): 12:25, 31 January 2021
Diffs of the user's reverts: (#1)
Previous version reverted to (#2): 18:45, 31 January 2021
Diffs of the user's reverts: (#2)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:48, 31 January 2021 (also include DS alert re: BLPs)
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George_Floyd#Revert (started at 12:35, 31 January 2021)
Comments:
Later started reverting at the related Derek Chauvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Previous version reverted to: 09:16, 1 February 2021
Diffs of the user's reverts:
—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
- Please be more specific about where I went wrong or what rules I violated. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Edit warring, reverting to your preferred version, is not an accepted practice. It's especially disruptive for controversial BLPs like Floyd. You have continued, despite warnings, and without establishing consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- The one you should have read after I posted this [[82]], one you were aware of as you posted this [[83]], so you are fully aware of our policies on edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Slatersteven, I am able to read. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- So why did you ask what rule you broke if you knew?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I never broke any rules. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your comments are ironic, Slatersteven, considering you were the one to revert the content I added just four minutes after it was added. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.", you made 4 reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- So why did you ask what rule you broke if you knew?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Slatersteven, I am able to read. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well actually you did as everything you added or removed has been added or removed before. OK it was a while ago the last time, but there is no statute of limitations. Its why I warned you on the 31st [[84]]. It has all been discussed at length, many times. Which is why I told you to take it to talk. Note this [[85]] was done after my warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the content per number 7 of WP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". This was exactly that. The editor in question had no reason to place the content back in. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- None of it was libelous or unsourced, it is questionable whether it is biased or poorly sourced. But it was long-standing content added via consensus (you need to read the talk page archives), you should have made a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the content per number 7 of WP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". This was exactly that. The editor in question had no reason to place the content back in. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well actually you did as everything you added or removed has been added or removed before. OK it was a while ago the last time, but there is no statute of limitations. Its why I warned you on the 31st [[84]]. It has all been discussed at length, many times. Which is why I told you to take it to talk. Note this [[85]] was done after my warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note This seems to have spurred a full page protection request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#George_Floyd (permlink).—Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- TLDR version The above can be summed by whether this applies here:
... it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC) - Bagumba came into this matter narrow minded. Despite Slatersteven edit warring (evidence of said edit warring can be seen on the article history), Bagumba's first action was to place a warning on my talk page but not Slatersteven's talk page. I appreciate that I made further edits to the article, but this still doesn't excuse Bagumba's actions, and this should also be looked at. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I left you a DS alert. Someone else gave you the EW warning. Slatersteven was already aware of DS sanctions.—Bagumba (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it is time to let the admins decide, nothing new can be added to this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Mr. bobby & User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: )
Page: Padre Pio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Mr. bobby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rafaelosornio (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:
Mr. bobby:
Rafaelosornio:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both users warned: [98] [99]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I'm an uninvolved user in this edit war, but these two users have been at each other's throats for the past three days. Edit warring has spanned from Jan 30 to a couple hours ago, and both have broken 3RR. Both users discuss through edit summaries, which is obviously not encouraged, but they have both been very disruptive. The page history for the past 3 days is 90% composed of this edit war, as demonstrated in the several diffs above. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:122.163.35.242 and User:Indian Dignity reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: )
Page: Toplessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 122.163.35.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Indian Dignity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [100]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [101]
- [102]
- [103]
- [104] (this edit by brand-new editor "Indian Dignity", obviously created by the IP to continue edit warring}
- [105]
- [106]
- [107]
- [108]
- [109]
- [110]
- [111]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [113]
Comments:
Straightforward edit-warring by IP, who created an account after they were warned (by me) that their next revert would trigger an EW report.[114] IP/account is attempting to remove sourced information from the article without a consensus discussion on the talk page; edits are most probably an ethnic PoV edits. IP should be temp blocked, and account indeffed as sock created for illegitimate purposes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Editor has now reverted four more times, edit warring with 3 other accounts and CluebotNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Two more reverts against another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- And another series of reverts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Two more reverts against another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just seen this thread after reverting him a few more times. As I considered this to be obvious vandalism (introduction of deliberate factual errors and deleting things because he just plain doesn't like it) I've been liberal in reverting his edits and have reported him to WP:AIV. However now that I see it's been reported here I've undone my edit just to stop the back and forth. As far as I'm concerned this is unambiguous vandalism, so WP:3RR shouldn't apply, but to be on the safe side I'm leaving it as it is for now. — Czello 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Follow up: The AIV report has led to him being blocked for 31 hours for vandalism: consequently I've made a final revert. I hope this is okay with everyone given that this been determined to be unambiguous vandalism. — Czello 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fine with me, although I think 31 hours is a bit lenient considering the amount of reverting that multiple editors have had to deal with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:2001:5b0:241e:93c8:dd75:b154:a649:131b et al. reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: )
Page: David L. Hoggan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 2001:5b0:241e:93c8:dd75:b154:a649:131b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2001:5b0:241e:93c8:a5a9:755c:46:f3aa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2001:5b0:241e:93c8:98dd:d78a:e122:722f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [115]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120], [121], [122]
Comments:
These three IPs -- obviously the same person -- have been removing sourced information from this article, claiming it is "slander". The subject of the article is dead (1988), and this is not a BLP issue. The information is sourced in the body of the article to a reliable source. I have invited the editor to discuss their concerns on the talk page, but they have refused to do so, they just continue to delete without comment except "slander". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:73.61.18.181 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )
Page: The Fat Controller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.61.18.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [123] – stable revision with narrators included as voice actors.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [124] – IP removed voice credits
- [125] – again, today
- [126] – same, today
- [127] – same again, all within two hours on different IPs
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] – 3RR warning, after all talk page messages ignored. [129], [130], [131]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talk page discussion, dating back to August with no resolution or input by wider community. I'm on my own here. Also got no help at Template talk:Infobox character. If this is brushed off as merely a content dispute like last time, then it's a pretty one-sided dispute when I've made plenty of effort to engage in discussion.
Comments:
An IP-hopper is removing content (voice acting credits) from the The Fat Controller. They are being unresponsive via talk pages, only responding via edit summaries with a hostile and uncivil tone. They also did not take kindly to my 3RR warning, interpreting it as a threat when it is nothing of the sort—I'm going by the book in posting it at their talk page.
The IP's rationales (see abovementioned diffs) make no sense, nor have they provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:86.144.191.234 reported by User:Alex B4 (Result: )
Page: Michael Portillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.144.191.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004066211 by Alex B4 (talk)"
- 22:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004064984 by Alex B4 (talk)"
- 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004064127 by Alex B4 (talk)"
- 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004063221 by Alex B4 (talk)"
- Further revert at 02:57, 2 February 2021
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "warning: disruptive editing"
- 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "warning: disruptive editing"
- 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "warning: disruptive editing"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1004064903&diffmode=source
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_B4&diff=1004065908&oldid=1004065007&diffmode=source
Comments: Continued disruptive editing despite infobox talk page consensus, being made aware of WP and attempts to resolve on user and article talk pages. Update: The page is now protected.
User:2600:1014:B112:1659:CCC6:94B5:62E2:AAE2 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: )
Page: Rio 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1014:B112:1659:CCC6:94B5:62E2:AAE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [132]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]
Comments:
The IP has been continuing to dispute their changes on Big Boss's fate at the Rio 2 article despite discussion taking place on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Daveout reported by User:HarrySime (Result: )
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]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=997550013
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- I keep putting material from the opening paragraph which should be in the bio section, in the bio section - HarrySime (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Yes there is an entry on the talk page. Can't see what is complicated about it. - HarrySime (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
User:Abdallem reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: )
Page: Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abdallem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
- 11:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the person responsible to behave in a more professional manner. There is no on going discussions, the person behind posting that hideous picture is clearly biased, we have posted a more recent clearer picture so we ask the individual in question to stop this childish behaviour."
- 11:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
- 09:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
- 08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."
- 06:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "/* WP:LEADIMAGE */"
Comments:
- Abdallem isn't backing down and continues to insert his copyvio image in the article, even after this report. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key player, and it appears that u:Abdallem has a WP:Conflict of Interest, as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: Are you confusing AmirahBreen and Abdallem or did I miss something? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key player, and it appears that u:Abdallem has a WP:Conflict of Interest, as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
User:PlainAndSimpleTailor reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )
Page: United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [140] (same reduction of opposition to just "Michael Dougan")
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]
Comments:
Editor was previously edit warring as 80.42.39.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), despite starting a RFC on the talk page which they have little intention of allowing to proceed. FDW777 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Editor also sought to completely remove the same material, by replacing it with a totally different text here. Cambial foliage❧ 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
User:IndianWarriorWikiedit reported by User:Mr. Gerbear (Result: )
Page: Miss Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IndianWarriorWikiedit (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=Miss_Universe&diff=1003424653&oldid=1003424384
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1003432640&oldid=1003427133
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&type=revision&diff=1003462226&oldid=1003451157
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1003673287&oldid=1003620793
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1004128796&oldid=1004111451
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianWarriorWikiedit&diff=1003621443&oldid=1003467999
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianWarriorWikiedit&diff=1003467999&oldid=1003451199
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miss_Universe#Regarding_claim_being_%22most_watched%22
Comments:
This user has repeatedly reverted content on the Miss Universe page without discussion. The user was also warned multiple times, and has removed the warnings on their page which means they saw the warnings. This has been going on for a few days now. The user's edit summaries also do not show good faith, assuming another editor of bias, and also shows that the user does not understand what vandalism on Wikipedia actually is. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Majoka4321 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )
Page: Orh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Majoka4321 (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:
- 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Orh."
- 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "/* February 2021 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- [147]
- [148]
- 07:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Content Changing */"
Comments:
The article was up for a rewrite and it was completed on 18 December 2020. Since then some caste POV pushers (IPs and users) started reverting to the old unreliably sourced version [149] [150] [151] [152]. It was protected by Ivanvector on 23 December. But since the expiry of the protection, these IPs and new users have again started reverting to the old unreliable/poorly sourced version [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]. It is very much possible that the other IPs and user are socks of Majoka4321. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also note how the user makes it clear that they'll use another account to revert war "continuously " here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the user's conduct has been confrontational and counterproductive. However, I think there could be a legitimate concern of WP:Systemic bias at the root of it all. Marginalized groups often find themselves written about by the dominant culture in a historical perspective they believe is inaccurate or unflattering. The user's last comments hint at that feeling of despair. I've asked them to consider the more productive alternative of discussion and compromise in an attempt to achieve consensus. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia should be removing sourced stuff because some user from some community is "feeling despaired". Caste warrior have problem with everything written in Wiki articles. This specific article was the target of a POV pusher pushing unsourced content [158] [159]. That time the article was full of glorification, even then they wanted more. When I reverted their unsourced changes, they came to my talk page with threats of legal action with comment laced with cuss words and slangs [160]. I'm quite sure this is teh same user, since they too asked me instead to search for the sources in support of their POV edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)