EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== [[User:PostcolonialLitNerd |
== [[User:PostcolonialLitNerd]] reported by [[User:Pikavoom]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Priyamvada Gopal<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Priyamvada Gopal<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
*'''Comment''' I want to take this opportunity to point out that [[User:Pikavoom|Pikavoom]], [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]], [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] and [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] have made no attempt to understand the legitimate objection I have to their edits. Moreover, it's instructive to note that the complainants have repeatedly reintroduced a slur and personal attack against Gopal into the article without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors. The offending material reads: {{xt|"warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex"}} & {{xt|"the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition"}}. These remarks are not presented 'responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone'. It's abusive and in contravention of [[WP:BLPBALANCE]] policy. [[User:Pikavoom|Pikavoom]], [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]], [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] and [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] have continued to revert to these comments. That was and continues to be my primary objection. Anyone who sets out to introduce material that unreasonably and abusively paints the subject in a less than favourable light is not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia. There are other minor content disputes covered on the talk page. I strongly encourage Administrators to read my edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I have carefully explained my changes and attempted to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. It is appropriate to revert changes that have not achieved consensus or contravene Wikipedia's policies and standards. Other editors have been supportive and thanked me for my edits. [[User:PostcolonialLitNerd|PostcolonialLitNerd]] ([[User talk:PostcolonialLitNerd|talk]]) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' I want to take this opportunity to point out that [[User:Pikavoom|Pikavoom]], [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]], [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] and [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] have made no attempt to understand the legitimate objection I have to their edits. Moreover, it's instructive to note that the complainants have repeatedly reintroduced a slur and personal attack against Gopal into the article without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors. The offending material reads: {{xt|"warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex"}} & {{xt|"the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition"}}. These remarks are not presented 'responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone'. It's abusive and in contravention of [[WP:BLPBALANCE]] policy. [[User:Pikavoom|Pikavoom]], [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]], [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] and [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] have continued to revert to these comments. That was and continues to be my primary objection. Anyone who sets out to introduce material that unreasonably and abusively paints the subject in a less than favourable light is not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia. There are other minor content disputes covered on the talk page. I strongly encourage Administrators to read my edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I have carefully explained my changes and attempted to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. It is appropriate to revert changes that have not achieved consensus or contravene Wikipedia's policies and standards. Other editors have been supportive and thanked me for my edits. [[User:PostcolonialLitNerd|PostcolonialLitNerd]] ([[User talk:PostcolonialLitNerd|talk]]) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
::I am right and the four other users are wrong. The editor doubles down on their bad behavior and shows no insight into why their editing conduct has been found to be objectional enough to be taken to two notice boards. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC). |
::I am right and the four other users are wrong. The editor doubles down on their bad behavior and shows no insight into why their editing conduct has been found to be objectional enough to be taken to two notice boards. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC). |
||
::*{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours for long term edit warring. Since 20 April there are thirteen edits by [[User:PostcolonialLitNerd]] which have the 'reverted' tag in the edit history. This is evidence that their changes don't have consensus. Their statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priyamvada_Gopal&diff=1019755823&oldid=1019500914 {{green|'I will continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish'}}] sounds like a promise to continue edit warring. The exchange. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Anjo james]] reported by [[User:Jstore Master]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Anjo james]] reported by [[User:Jstore Master]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 04:12, 10 May 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:PostcolonialLitNerd reported by User:Pikavoom (Result: Blocked)
Page: Priyamvada Gopal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PostcolonialLitNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1] (specifically ""Depending on your point of view, Priyamvada Gopal is either a warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex." quote and framing of controversies as "media attention")
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this section and below
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [3]
Comments:
This is slow edit warring against multiple users, PostcolonialLitNerd is the only one reverting this version in and is reverted by myself, User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Xxanthippe, User:Atchom, and User:15. PostcolonialLitNerd might not have reached 4 reverts in 24 hours, but they've got up to 3 reverts a couple of times and has reached something like twelve reverts total on this content.
Furthermore, PostcolonialLitNerd is a WP:SPA that only edits this article, see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Priyamvada Gopal and the user's talk page where multiple users have raised concerns about their involvement.
In addition, PostcolonialLitNerd has been combative against other users and BLP journalists on talk and has engaged in blatant canvassing on the talk page with selective pings ([4], [5] "I will continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish", [6], "was mindlessly restored by 15"). The user has persisted in canvassing despite warnings ([7], [8]) Pikavoom (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I too am concerned about the behavior here. User:PostcolonialLitNerd has made around 100 edits in their Wikipedia career. Everyone of them has been about Priyamvada_Gopal and many of them have been reverts of consensus views. There is not a single edit outside this subject. I conclude that User:PostcolonialLitNerd is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia but to fight one side of a particular political battle. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC).
- Comment. I agree with what everyone has said above and shall not rehash the contents at undue length. PostcolonialLitNerd is a belligerent SPA who has engaged in blatant canvassing (despite being warned several times by several users), and who appears to be set on waging a war of attrition against all of the other editors involved (who are by no means in agreement about many issues) until they get their way. This is not simply a case of an over-enthusiastic editor feeling possessive about the page as per WP:OWN, but a case of blatant bad faith editing. Atchom (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Endorse block; continued edit-warring after numerous warnings, WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I want to take this opportunity to point out that Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have made no attempt to understand the legitimate objection I have to their edits. Moreover, it's instructive to note that the complainants have repeatedly reintroduced a slur and personal attack against Gopal into the article without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors. The offending material reads: "warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex" & "the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition". These remarks are not presented 'responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone'. It's abusive and in contravention of WP:BLPBALANCE policy. Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have continued to revert to these comments. That was and continues to be my primary objection. Anyone who sets out to introduce material that unreasonably and abusively paints the subject in a less than favourable light is not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia. There are other minor content disputes covered on the talk page. I strongly encourage Administrators to read my edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I have carefully explained my changes and attempted to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. It is appropriate to revert changes that have not achieved consensus or contravene Wikipedia's policies and standards. Other editors have been supportive and thanked me for my edits. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am right and the four other users are wrong. The editor doubles down on their bad behavior and shows no insight into why their editing conduct has been found to be objectional enough to be taken to two notice boards. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC).
- Blocked – 72 hours for long term edit warring. Since 20 April there are thirteen edits by User:PostcolonialLitNerd which have the 'reverted' tag in the edit history. This is evidence that their changes don't have consensus. Their statement 'I will continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish' sounds like a promise to continue edit warring. The exchange. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am right and the four other users are wrong. The editor doubles down on their bad behavior and shows no insight into why their editing conduct has been found to be objectional enough to be taken to two notice boards. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC).
User:Anjo james reported by User:Jstore Master (Result: )
Page: Sreejith Panickar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anjo james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [9]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Unsourced words being newly inserted are *right-wing*, *insensitive*, *misogynistic*, *uncivilized*, *communal* etc.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Warnings were issued to this user on their Talk page by two users including me. All he did was to use abusive and obscene vernacular in his reply and a threat that the edits will continue. The article Talk page is now updated with details.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;
Done.
Comments:
Person was warned multiple times by multiple users on their Talk page. But the person replied in abusive and vulgar language with a threat they would repeat the edits.
Jstore Master (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please fix the report to include diffs rather than Oldids. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Jstore Master (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Stifle, the person has restarted vandalism after a 24-hour block. Please attend to this. Diff below. Jstore Master (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Diff
User:Newtlamender reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Warned)
Page: Marvel Cinematic Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newtlamender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [31]
Comments:
User has continued to edit war despite warnings from multiple users.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Just noting that user wanted to resolve the issue here. Since I am neutral I would recommend an actual consensus this time. Since his last discussion didn’t have results.Jhenderson 777 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that this attempt was made after repeated warnings and posting on this noticeboard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my defense, until TriiipleThreat revealed to me the other means that could be used to end the discussion, I didn't know about them. When I did, I looked into ending this discussion trough these means, and stop reverting the edits. — Newtlamender (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. I didn’t mean to bite because you might be new. Hopefully you editors come as a compromise or something. Jhenderson 777 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Newtlamender: then how do you explain the reverts you made after your were warned against further edit warring? Or your response to the warning? And this isn't about "ending a discussion" (which btw is still ongoing), it's about the reverts you continually chose to make, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. - wolf 03:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my defense, until TriiipleThreat revealed to me the other means that could be used to end the discussion, I didn't know about them. When I did, I looked into ending this discussion trough these means, and stop reverting the edits. — Newtlamender (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Newtlamender is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:24.47.214.156 reported by User:Mikehawk10 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Portal:Current events/2021 May 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.47.214.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant to any topic…"
- 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant at all (how is this a current event)? Stop removing my rightful edits"
- 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant"
- 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 19:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
IP is repeatedly removing information from a project page in a manner that appears to have violated the 3-revert-rule. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - The IP user is still at it. Love of Corey (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Generalsagar reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Warned)
Page: COVID-19 pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Generalsagar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:30, 2 May 2021 diff hist +1,106 COVID-19 pandemic in India →2021 - The edit he made over which he is edit warring.
- 07:11, 2 May 2021 diff hist +1,106 COVID-19 pandemic in India Undid revision 1020982987 by ViperSnake151 (talk)
- 11:27, 4 May 2021 diff hist +1,107 COVID-19 pandemic in India →2021
- 05:01, 6 May 2021 diff hist −204 COVID-19 pandemic in India →2021
- 02:14, 7 May 2021 diff hist −207 COVID-19 pandemic in India Undid revision 1021853684 by Yoonadue (talk)
- 04:58, 7 May 2021 Generalsagar talk contribs 178,953 bytes −208 →2021: Butt-hurt Modi bhakts are removing the facts
- curprev 08:01, 7 May 2021 Generalsagar talk contribs 178,953 bytes −208 →2021: Readers need to know the facts and it appears that Modi's PR machinery is deleting it.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Making edits against the consensus held on talk page.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [33]
Comments: User has less than 300 edits in 10 years. With talk page full of warning, unresponsive attitude and offensive edit summaries[34][35] this user is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Generalsagar is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:MalakiTT reported by User:Pieceofmetalwork (Result: )
Page: Id Kah Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MalakiTT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]
The user was also warned on their own talk page: [43]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [44]
Comments:
The user repeatedly added the same WP:Synth material despite several different editors warning them not to, and reverting their edits. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: As of just now the editor in question is continuing to engage in warring over this subject, although they have moved past using the undo button and been doing it manually. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
User:SteveBenassi reported by User:Shrike (Result: )
Page: Eran Elhaik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SteveBenassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect. See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms"
- 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1022258100 by NonReproBlue (talk)Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect"
- 13:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1022240960 by NonReproBlue (talk) Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect"
- 01:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Research */ Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eran Elhaik."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
He reverting to this edit [46] on 7 of May Shrike (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Benassi broke the rule and a sanction is probable. But the case is a palmary one of biting the newbie, and the persistent reverter who helped provoke this is probably not new to Wikipedia, despite registering recently. No one should have been reverting there until the discussion on the talk page, and at RSN, ran its course.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Question Why not blocking Benassi temporarily for edit warring because looks like many user are conduct edit war against Benassi? 110.137.161.129 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
SteveBenassi was warned about edit warring at Eran Elhaik and elsewhere several times but ignored those warnings, as well as the edit summaries by both myself and others, instead continuing to revert and to leave repetitive summaries that did not engage with objections. He has also continually refused to discuss in Talk. He appears to be continuing to edit war on other pages, just recently at Genetic studies on Jews ([[47]]), where he has reinstated similar disputed material to that he continues to add to Eran Elhaik. He is persistently reinstating while refusing to discuss or engage with other editors. Skllagyook (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 reported by User:Justice1980 (Result: )
Page: Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States
User being reported:User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464
Previous version before User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 reverting: [old version]
reverted User:Aceuswa to User:SounderBruce [[48]]
reverted User:Justice1980 to User:SounderBruce [[49]]
reverted User:Justice1980 to User:SounderBruce by User:Firestar464 [[50]]
User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 demonstrated the same pattern on Joe Nguyen page. User:SounderBruce conducted reverting twice, then User:Firestar464 came and did the 3rd reverting.
Attempted to talk with User:SounderBruce at [to SounderBruce] and [message to SounderBruce]. Suggested User:SounderBruce to edit instead of completely reverting.
Also let a message for User:Firestar464 at [to Firestar464]
Comments:
User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 apparently are either the same person or closely related and conspire to work together in edit war. Proof: User:Firestar464 removed the message User:Justice1980 left for User:SounderBruce [for SounderBruce]
If they are not the same person or related, why did User:Firestar464 even bother to edit the message meant for User:SounderBruce ?
The contents that User:Justice1980 added were helpful contributions to the Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page with history to back up. Why would User:Firestar464 blindly remove those entries without any prior engagement on that page? — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The accusation that Firestar is == Bruce has also been made at SPI; I've rejected the case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aceuswa may be of interest here, though. --Blablubbs|talk 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The accusation that Justice1980 == Aceuswa is false. Justice1980 is an independent account with no affiliation with Aceuswa. User:Blablubbs has no evidence to back up his claim. Also, User:Blablubbs failed to explain why User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 conveniently coordinate to revert others edits not once, but twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice1980 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The so-called "coordination" was simply the result of bringing up the problematic edits on WP:DISCORD while seeking advice. As for the content, there's been some heavy brigading on Joe Ngyuen and Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States related to a state bill that failed to pass in this year's session. A trio of editors have been trying to place an undue weight on this bill for both pages using unreliable sources like LinkedIn, an opinion page in a local newspaper, and non-specific links to legislator homepages. It would be fine if it was a sentence or two that went over the controversy, but 6 paragraphs on the bill is excessive. I've simply been reverting to keep the former in line with BLP standards (as trying to suggest racist intent is slander) and the latter from getting out of control. SounderBruce 19:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Justice1980's edits on Joe Nguyen page were simply adding his wife's maiden name and a link to her Linkedin profile. Which Wikipedia rule justifies User:SounderBruce's removal of those entries? And User:Justice1980 made many edits on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page. If User:Firestar464 was simply providing advices, and was acting independently, why did he remove User:Justice1980's multiple edits and revert everything back to User:SounderBruce's version? Among those edits, User:Justice1980 actually pointed to an existing Wikipedia page. And no one should ignore the pattern that User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 established: User:SounderBruce reverted the 1st and 2nd time, then User:Firestar464 jumped in and reverted the 3rd time. Also worths pointing out is that User:Justice1980 tried to work with User:SounderBruce by leaving a message and suggesting him to edit, not completely remove other's contents. If User:SounderBruce truly thought 6 paragraphs were too much, he could edit, instead of completely removing the entry.Justice1980 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:BLPSOURCES: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
- From WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources."
- From WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: [...] 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources"
- From WP:3RRNO: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: [...] Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy."
- And for good measure, LinkedIn is listed at WP:RSP as an unreliable self-published source and "LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons."
- Needless to say, there's a lot of policies you didn't bother reading. SounderBruce 21:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Justice1980 did not quote anything from Linkedin, rather, just added a link to Linkedin. This is different from quoting Linkedin. And let's focus on the complaint here: the irregular pattern established by User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464: User:SounderBruce reverted the 1st and 2nd time, then User:Firestar464 jumped in and reverted the 3rd time. User:Justice1980 provided reasons for every edit entry. User:SounderBruce could edit to help improve the content, yet chose revert the content entirely. And when he was at the 2nd reverting, he enlisted help from User:Firestar464 to carry out the 3rd reverting. They have done this not once, but twice.
- User:Justice1980's edits on Joe Nguyen page were simply adding his wife's maiden name and a link to her Linkedin profile. Which Wikipedia rule justifies User:SounderBruce's removal of those entries? And User:Justice1980 made many edits on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page. If User:Firestar464 was simply providing advices, and was acting independently, why did he remove User:Justice1980's multiple edits and revert everything back to User:SounderBruce's version? Among those edits, User:Justice1980 actually pointed to an existing Wikipedia page. And no one should ignore the pattern that User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 established: User:SounderBruce reverted the 1st and 2nd time, then User:Firestar464 jumped in and reverted the 3rd time. Also worths pointing out is that User:Justice1980 tried to work with User:SounderBruce by leaving a message and suggesting him to edit, not completely remove other's contents. If User:SounderBruce truly thought 6 paragraphs were too much, he could edit, instead of completely removing the entry.Justice1980 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The so-called "coordination" was simply the result of bringing up the problematic edits on WP:DISCORD while seeking advice. As for the content, there's been some heavy brigading on Joe Ngyuen and Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States related to a state bill that failed to pass in this year's session. A trio of editors have been trying to place an undue weight on this bill for both pages using unreliable sources like LinkedIn, an opinion page in a local newspaper, and non-specific links to legislator homepages. It would be fine if it was a sentence or two that went over the controversy, but 6 paragraphs on the bill is excessive. I've simply been reverting to keep the former in line with BLP standards (as trying to suggest racist intent is slander) and the latter from getting out of control. SounderBruce 19:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Justice1980, you edited, one editor reverted you. You reverted back (meaning you ignored WP:BRD) and another reverted you, then you came here. Since you are the one wanting to add information, the onus is on you to build discuss and build a consensus on the talk page. Really, the only worrisome editor is you. You simply do not understand policy, in so many ways, I just don't have time to cover them. But yes, you are the problem here. If you get reverted, you need to go to the talk page and discuss with others, instead of reverting back. If you can't get a majority of people to agree with you, well, then the text isn't going to be added, no matter how wonderful or useful you believe it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Let's get the records straight here: User:SounderBruce reverted some else' edits first, User:Justice1980 reverted it back after User:SounderBruce's first attempt to revert and left comments. User:SounderBruce then ignored WP:BRD and reverted the second time. Per User:Dennis Brown's comment, User:SounderBruce should seek consensus, rather than bluntly revert the 2nd time. User:SounderBruce did not seek consensus, and knowingly ignored WP:BRD. — Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Locke Cole reported by User:HAL333 (Result: )
Page: Sagan standard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] (which they quickly removed)
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sagan standard#Self references
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [57]
Comments:The user repeatedly removed a hatnote, despite ambiguous policy and a failure to gain consensus. ~ HAL333 16:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The first diff was an edit, which this editor even acknowledged here (
You made a bold edit ...
). It was also over thirty hours from the first edit to the last revert. The editor continued to insert WP:SELFREF's back in to the page, despite being warned that doing so was disruptive, and acknowledging that they read the guideline but still refused to use a method to make the selfref less damaging (such as using {{selfref}} or adding theselfref
parameter to a template invocation where said template supported the parameter). As WP:SELFREF is a guideline there is a community consensus thatself-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided
. The self reference in discussion does not meet any of the potential exceptions provided for. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)- Selfref does not apply to hatnotes. ~ HAL333 16:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- [citation needed] —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Selfref does not apply to hatnotes. ~ HAL333 16:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Pizzafan300 reported by User:Zachary Daiquiri (Result: )
Page: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pizzafan300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "You treat it like it's your article it's not, you troll users by undoing their information and start edit wars with them, That is enough to report you."
- 16:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "I gave gave the source! so why are you undoing this info?!!?"
- 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 04:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Both of you, knock it off.."
- 04:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "I can do this ALL day, Mr. undo user"
- 04:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "https://www.amazon.com/SpongeBob-Movie-Sponge-Run-UHD/dp/B08SHPT4FS/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=The+SpongeBob+Movie%3A+Sponge+on+the+Run&qid=1620533948&s=instant-video&sr=1-2"
- 04:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "OH MY GOD. STOP REMOVING LEGIT INFORMATION ALSO QUIT THRENEDING TO BLOCK ME FOR ADDING INFO THAT'S TRUE AND YOU THINK IS NOT, I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE TRYING TO BAN ME FROM THIS SITE."
- 03:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "The movie not available on Apple tv, Vudu, or any other streaming platforms anymore in united states. it's exclusive to Paramount+."
- 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Stop acting like a baby and quit vandalizing this page."
- Consecutive edits made from 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC) to 03:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Hey! I given source, so don't start any edit wars."
- 03:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 03:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1022201866 by Magitroopa (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC) to 03:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: This user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, judging by his attacks toward User:Magitroopa, I beleive that he might be a sock of User:Zjholder. Zachary Daiquiri Talk? 16:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Uh, honestly would think this is a bit of a stretch to think this is a possible sockpuppet- I honestly don't think it is, but obviously could be entirely possible. I wouldn't tie it to that, though.
- Anyways... also going to point out that some of the reverts such as this was due to the fact they were removing previous information (that was sourced as well!) and also failing to follow WP:CITEVAR. As I was attempting to fix/update it, they reverted 1-2 more times, before I was finally able to get it fixed here without having the information/source removed that they continued to persistently remove. Magitroopa (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:MTR700 reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)
Page: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MTR700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Demagogy"
- 17:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "I provided data from the Russian technical literature. What was previously in the article is the speculation of American authors who are unfamiliar with the technical literature about the MiG-25. My information is reliable, and I don't have to discuss or prove anything else."
- Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC) to 17:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 17:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "The data confirmed by the source was restored. The link to the video containing a scan of the speed and altitude diagram has been restored. Added a link to the book "MiG-25RB Aerodynamics", page 85 for verification."
- 17:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 16:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "If the video contains scans of documents, this video is the source"
- 16:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "returned substantiated, sourced claims"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:MTR700 "/* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 */ new section"
Comments:
Use made no attempt as discussion on their own talk page or the article's McSly (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
User:ArkaRana reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: )
Page: Dr. Ratna De (Nag) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArkaRana (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 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC) to 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag) over redirect"
- 11:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Proposed deletion of Dr. Sudipto Roy */ moved"
- 20:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Page renaming */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:ArkaRana "/* Proposed deletion of Dr. Sudipto Roy */"
Comments:
User is engaged in page moves that do not follow WP:PRECISE. I have made a comment on their talk page and instead of replying, they are edit warring. They have moved the page again. They were also warned by other user, and have not replied to any of the talk page comments. This page move is also being done by them here. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)