Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
*The IP edited the article many times without sources or explanation, adding unrelated images and reverted my edit 3 times. I suspect the user won't use his real account to edit the article. The user real account is [[User:Oppufc|Oppufc]], evidence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Thai_Army&diff=924105757&oldid=924104262&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Thai_Army&diff=924102145&oldid=924101031&diffmode=source] [[User:Gend07000|Gend07000]] ([[User talk:Gend07000|talk]]) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
*The IP edited the article many times without sources or explanation, adding unrelated images and reverted my edit 3 times. I suspect the user won't use his real account to edit the article. The user real account is [[User:Oppufc|Oppufc]], evidence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Thai_Army&diff=924105757&oldid=924104262&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Thai_Army&diff=924102145&oldid=924101031&diffmode=source] [[User:Gend07000|Gend07000]] ([[User talk:Gend07000|talk]]) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wallyfromdilbert]] reported by [[User:SchroCat]] (Result: ) == |
== [[Wallyfromdilbert]] reported by [[User:SchroCat]] (Result: Both warned) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alec Guinness}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alec Guinness}} <br /> |
||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
*I'm not sure why this user would not have continued the conversation on the talk page. I will self-revert if that is appropriate, although this would seem to be a clear boomerang if SchroCat is serious. [[User:Wallyfromdilbert|– Wallyfromdilbert]] ([[User talk:Wallyfromdilbert|talk]]) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
*I'm not sure why this user would not have continued the conversation on the talk page. I will self-revert if that is appropriate, although this would seem to be a clear boomerang if SchroCat is serious. [[User:Wallyfromdilbert|– Wallyfromdilbert]] ([[User talk:Wallyfromdilbert|talk]]) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
:*You have reverted four times. Were you serious when you reported me for not reverting four times? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
:*You have reverted four times. Were you serious when you reported me for not reverting four times? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' Both [[User:SchroCat]] and [[User:Wallyfromdilbert]] are '''warned'''. The next person to revert the article may be blocked unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on article Talk. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== [[MrOllie]] reported by [[User:Ultimâ]] (Result: No violation) == |
== [[MrOllie]] reported by [[User:Ultimâ]] (Result: No violation) == |
Revision as of 23:24, 2 November 2019
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Rmmiller44 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rmmiller44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of discretionary sanction notice
- Comments:
Violation of discretionary sanctions / WP:1RR. Edit history shows a non-neutral right-wing editing bias. A short block may educate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. My edit was a completely neutral correction to non-neutral left-wing bias in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS that presents an opinion as if it were fact. The offending statement claimed that a characterization of events by President Trump was "false." His statement was his own POV, and is unfalsifiable. It CANNOT be proven true of false. Thus labeling it as false violates WP standards. It is factual that he believes the inquiry is a coup. It is not factual that this statement is false, but rather someone else's opinion.
For example, saying "I like chocolate ice cream," is a FACT because it can be proven true or false. Saying "Chocolate ice cream tastes good," is an OPINION that cannot be proven true or false. Trump offered an OPINION from his POV that the inquiry is an attempted coup. It is simply not possible to derive facts proving this true or false.
The reversion was maliciously intended to maintain a non-neutral viewpoint in what should be a neutral and objective article. My removal of the word "falsely" left the opinions of the source intact and up to the reader to decide whether to share that opinion.
Left-wing editors are turning WP into a propaganda site and using reversions, non-existent consensus, biased non-authoritative opinion pieces as fact, discretionary restrictions, and WP sanctions to block anyone from correcting WP standard violations.
And THAT is a coup, in my opinion. Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)rmmiller
- Rmmiller44, Trump offered a falsehood, not an opinion, and we can call out falsehoods as such. This is not a "non-existent" consensus as it has been discussed on the talk page at length. You chose to violate 1RR and discretionary sanctions, which you were made of. Your defense is essentially to obfuscate and counterpunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rmmiller44, your fellow editors have actually been quite patient with you. The page is actually under 1RR and discretionary sanctions, and they repeatedly tried to explain why your edit was inappropriate, to the point you got to 3RR. This is in addition to administrators and other users rather calmly talking to you on your talk page, and even offering advice on conduct and collegiality. Then it appears you attempted to get User:Beyond My Ken sanctioned using !adminhelp, claiming you were being attacked. Again, you were responded to in a rather patient and helpful manner by User:JamesBWatson, offering you VERY sound advice. Here, you state that their editing is part of a vast conspiracy based on their supposed political leanings, and a “coup”. The fundamental issue here is your intractable behaviour. NPOV doesn’t mean what you think it does. It means we reflect what reliable sources say, without undue equivocating or false balance. The subject of an article could believe purple elephants from space are controlling his/her mind. Hell, it may even be true. But if RS say it’s false, so do we. You need to spend some time cooling your heels, and learning how this works. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Rmmiller44 has some strong opinions about American politics, and has made it abundantly clear that their opinion about how Wikipedia should work matters more than the policies that everyone else manages to follow. - MrX 🖋 23:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Result: User:Rmmiller44 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they violate the WP:1RR restriction at Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Since the time that the 1RR rule was explained on their talk page they haven't continued to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I don't see any new warnings about their violation of discretionary sanctions. Are they not getting one from an uninvolved admin? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've issued a regular admin warning against further undiscussed reverts. I did not do anything under Arbcom authority, though those sanctions are still in place on the article and it is likely that any further 1RR violations could lead to a DS block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I'll quote you on that if this user does come back and violates the discretionary sections again. Based on their tone in their edit history, I assume they're only taking a brief break and will be back. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've issued a regular admin warning against further undiscussed reverts. I did not do anything under Arbcom authority, though those sanctions are still in place on the article and it is likely that any further 1RR violations could lead to a DS block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
User:92.239.205.101 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Page protected)
Page: Sam Sexton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.239.205.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9] [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This is the same person that I reported, and who was subsequently warned, for edit warring on the Dereck Chisora page the other day (User:Sweet Science Fan/User: 92.239.205.101, and more recently User:86.130.209.143). I correctly changed "Southern Area title" to "British Southern Area title". Firstly, because that’s what the title is. Secondly, somebody that is not a hardcore boxing fan, or one who is not British, and is just browsing the record table would be forced to click the link to see what a Southern Area title is, and even then, the link itself does not immediately make clear what a Southern Area title is. IP User: 92.239.205.101 reverted the edit twice, then on the third occasion reverted again through IP User: 86.130.209.143, then back to User: 92.239.205.101 for the fourth revert. It’s clear both IP's are the same person through the edit summaries, and also clear from the previous mentioned report I made that both IP's are used by User:Sweet Science Fan. I left an edit warring/3RR warning on both IP's talk pages as shown above. I also do not appreciate childish insults when my only intention is to maintain consistency of boxing pages as per the boxing MOS. 2.O.Boxing 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If Squared.Circle.Boxing is correct for reverting my edits, then surely others would have done so by now or do so in the future also but no one ever has and I suspect ever will. Seeing as he is the only person reverting my edits then only he has a problem. All he seems interested in is edit warring which is illustrated by the fact that he initiated this. He incorrectly changed "Southern Area title" to to "British Southern Area title" because he deems that the BBBofC should be shortened to British... therefore the BBBofC British title would then become the British British title by his logic. Contrary to his claim that clicking on my link to see what a Southern Area title is does not immediately make clear what the title is of course is wrong seeing as you can instantly see the Southern Area title under councils without so much as having to scroll down, more amusingly if you click on his link however it takes you to exactly the same information as mine does. HE IS THE ONE REVERTING MY EDITS FIRST. His only intention is not to maintain consistency as that would suggest that he was not the one who began editing all these pages in this manner in the first place but instead he has taken it upon himself to monopolise wikipedia and force his own perceived correct style of writing onto others. Again if ANYONE ELSE other than Squared.Circle.Boxing has any exception with my edits and reverts them then I will have no problem with that but as it stands only HE IS THE ONE who is causing this. Also the fact he is under the impression that my editing through both my IP's was a means of concealing the fact that the edits were coming from me and me alone is a joke as I just simply don't stay logged in at all times.
I made a constructive edit to the record table as per the MOS, which you clearly refuse to read. It is not my "perceived correct style of writing"...it is the MANUAL OF STYLE set forth by other users long before I began editing. As the manual of style states, British Boxing Board of Control or BBBoC is to be shortened to British, therefore, BBBoC Southern Area title becomes British Southern Area title, not Southern Area title, which also makes my linking of British to the British Boxing Board of Control correct. Simply listing the title as Southern Area isn’t very encyclopaedic. Your reasoning of "British British title" is illogical, as the word British (and the accompanying link) makes the need for BBBoC redundant. As I’ve stated, all I’m doing is following the manual of style, which is there in an attempt to maintain consistency across boxing pages. 2.O.Boxing 15:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussing this with you further is clearly a monumental exercise in futility, I don't care about your so called constructive edits as per blah blah blah MOS as you keep repeating endlessly and no one else clearly does either. well then LET THE OTHER USERS revert my edits to that MANUAL OF STYLE. All you are doing is being a irritating nuisance. LET OTHERS maintain consistency across boxing pages instead of just you. “This user enjoys smoking cannabis” sums you up as you clearly have a lot of time on your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Science Fan (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The link User:Schazjmd has posted is indeed the guideline I am adhering to, Thank you.
I am no longer willing to engage in conversation with a childish individual that wishes to partake in pathetic arguments and comically try to insult me through Wikipedia lol. I shall continue to make constructive edits and correct errors per the manual of style while doing my best to adhere to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, and shall also continue to report any breaches of Wikipedia's rules and regulations. 2.O.Boxing 16:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to style guideline being referred to, as best as I can tell. Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Page protected – 1 week. Please use the talk page to get agreement. If one of the editors continues to jump back and forth between an IP and an account, they are risking a block under the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
User:14.139.226.226 reported by User:HunMaster (Result: Malformed)
- Page
- Wazirabad, Gurgaon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 14.139.226.226 (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
- 08:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wazirabad, Gurgaon. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
User:171.61.218.101 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Manpreet Singh Ayali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 171.61.218.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923898031 by MarkH21 (talk)"
- 13:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923894669 by Money emoji (talk) http://famouspoliticaleader.blogspot.com/2016/05/manpreet-ayali-punjab-mla.htmlis not reliable source"
- 13:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "ive updated the external link of the person whom this page is about"
- 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923886703 by Jebcubed (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) to 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- 12:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "/* References */"
- 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "/* References */"
- 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
5 reverts in two hours by the IP to add social media links and unsourced content (5 is not even including the intermittent SPA reverts) — MarkH21 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 week by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Sweet Science Fan reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Both warned)
Page: Dereck Chisora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sweet Science Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [12]
- [13]
- [14]
- [15]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16][17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]
Comments:
Same as my report the other day. I left and same as my report yesterday. User:Sweet Science Fan keeps needlessly reverting constructive edits with no explanation. User claims I’m reverting all of his edits, when in actual fact it is he who has caused this by constantly reverting my initial edit. I’ve opened a discussion on the talk page which I clearly stated in my edit summaries numerous times, I also left a comment on the talk pages of both User:Sweet Science Fan and the associated IP, as well as leaving edit warring/3RR warnings. Wikipedia: WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines show that my edits are constructive, so the reverts are pointless. I also do not appreciate being told to "get a life" because User:Sweet Science Fan likes the way the lead was written and chooses to ignore the MOS. This is the third report for the same user, it is getting very tedious and rather pathetic now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October, 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Both User:Sweet Science Fan and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing are warned. Either one may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- So it’s a warning for both when one person is making constructive edits that adhere to MOS:BOXING/LEAD, while the other is reverting said edits, with no explanation whatsoever, back to a version that is not consistent with the MOS or every other boxer's lead section? That makes sense. This is also his second warning in the space of a week for the same page. How am I supposed to make constructive edits to a page if they’re going to cause an edit war and get me warned or even possibly blocked? 2.O.Boxing 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Squared.Circle.Boxing. Whether you are right or not, you are not entitled to keep reverting forever. It seems you are embarked on a program to improve the leads of boxing articles, based on your own reading of MOS:BOXING/LEAD. Now that your program has encountered resistance, it may be time to open a discussion at a central place such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. By appealing to a WikiProject you can get the opinions of people who work with these articles regularly, and you are not always fighting against one person. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- So it’s a warning for both when one person is making constructive edits that adhere to MOS:BOXING/LEAD, while the other is reverting said edits, with no explanation whatsoever, back to a version that is not consistent with the MOS or every other boxer's lead section? That makes sense. This is also his second warning in the space of a week for the same page. How am I supposed to make constructive edits to a page if they’re going to cause an edit war and get me warned or even possibly blocked? 2.O.Boxing 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Nights At Nyte reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Page protected, Both warned)
- Page
- Summer Camp Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Nights At Nyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923971740 by The Grand Delusion (talk)"
- 23:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923931304 by The Grand Delusion (talk) Please don't remove this again. It can't get anymore official than HBO Max themselves showing it."
- 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923803672 by Drmies (talk) How is the HBO Max presentation showing ALL Max Originals considered unreliable?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Summer Camp Island. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has repeatedly re-instated content that was added by Simmerdon3448 at the objections of editors, including myself and Drmies. However, I don't think the two accounts are related. EDIT: I am starting to suspect the accounts might be related. They have demonstrated a similar level of combative behavior and defensiveness when reverted. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Given the on going sockpuppet investigation, I figured it was preferable to protect the page while waiting how it turned out. @The Grand Delusion: @Nights At Nyte: You've both broken the three revert rule here. Expect to be blocked if this behaviour continues when the protection expires. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
User:SchroCat reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
- Page
- Alec Guinness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 924082504 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) you are at 3RR. I suggest you use the talk page and PROVIDE A DECENT RATIONALE FOR KEEPING THE BOX"
- 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) to last version by SchroCat"
- 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "No rationale given. It's still an excessive piece of nonsense"
- 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 2A01:4C8:140C:7443:6CF7:CB61:F457:1EA2 (talk): Not a typo, is it? (TW)"
- 21:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Really not needed - too excessive and much is tangential to his notability"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alec Guinness. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Infobox */ new section"
- Comments:
Repeated reverts of long-standing content with no discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not 4RR - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually 5 reverts in 24 hours, and still no discussion on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. How is number 5 a revert? It’s a bold edit. No 4. Was reverting sub-standard work, not part of edit warring. You are at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Help:Reverting:
Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version... Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.
– Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC) - (edit conflict) There's an argument to be made that #5 is a revert, not just a "bold edit", as it removed material that had been added by other editors. #4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it. Notwithstanding these policy niceties, I think you are not behaving well in this battle, SchroCat. I'll leave it to another administrator as to whether you should be sanctioned, but Wally is correct that you should have discussed your removal of the infobox and not reverted the restoration of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Number 5 is in no way a revert: removing older information is not reverting - that is re-writing the whole policy as no edits could ever be made on any existing text without being accused of edit warring. No, I haven’t been to the talk page as I’m in the process of cooking supper. Wally is at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Help:Reverting:
- Nonsense. How is number 5 a revert? It’s a bold edit. No 4. Was reverting sub-standard work, not part of edit warring. You are at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually 5 reverts in 24 hours, and still no discussion on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted to the status quo ante. When SchroCat is done with supper, he can seek consensus on the talk page. BRD. If that happens, i see no need to sanction anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Note that an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS. AFAIK there is no such threshold of "necessity" for the inclusion of one, meaning the removal was a subjective cosmetic improvement. BOLD edits are still fine in these circumstances, but when your rationale is not policy-based, you can't turn around and demand a policy-based rationale for the reversion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- "
an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS
": nope. See MOS:INFOBOXUSE ("neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and their use and basis is NOT cosmetic. To remove one is NOT cosmetic: when something is as misleading as that is, cosmetics have nothing to do with it - it's about not misleading the readers and ensuring they get the right information that is supported by context and nuance. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)- Not saying an infobox is mandatory, just that it's a valid, fundamental element of an article. Perhaps you did not have cosmetics or aesthetics in mind, but that was the impression I got by you deleting it as "unnecessary", but that's all irrelevant. As you say, it's neither mandated or prohibited by default, but a matter for consensus, which is exactly what I'm getting at. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a "fundamental element of an article", that falsehood exists only if you like them. No article is born with an IB. They have to be added - which is the bold edit. Anything that comes after adheres to the rest of the BRD cycle. Therefore, Schrocat was right to adopt the "R" and Wally should've discussed. That is how BRD works. Anything else is disruptive. CassiantoTalk 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you read my words, I specifically said it's not mandatory, just that it's a "valid, fundamental element". I say that because it's described as an "element" of an article in MOS: section 1.2. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If SchroCat was the "R", then this is indeed 4RR. Regardless, since all of the text had to be added, by this definition literally any removal (or replacement) would be a revert... This is all getting very strange — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a "fundamental element of an article", that falsehood exists only if you like them. No article is born with an IB. They have to be added - which is the bold edit. Anything that comes after adheres to the rest of the BRD cycle. Therefore, Schrocat was right to adopt the "R" and Wally should've discussed. That is how BRD works. Anything else is disruptive. CassiantoTalk 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not saying an infobox is mandatory, just that it's a valid, fundamental element of an article. Perhaps you did not have cosmetics or aesthetics in mind, but that was the impression I got by you deleting it as "unnecessary", but that's all irrelevant. As you say, it's neither mandated or prohibited by default, but a matter for consensus, which is exactly what I'm getting at. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- "
- @Swarm: From my read there are 4 reverts in 24 hours. First here, second here, third here, and finally forth here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- See Bbb23's comment: "
#4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it
". If you want to enable nationalistic warriors (check out the rest of that IP's edits), then that's your call, and if you really, really want to block a long-term editor in such a technicality, then feel free. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- See Bbb23's comment: "
Uninvolved, and not wishing to be involved, but I'm hoping Bbb23/Swarm could clarify for me (on my talk page if preferred). Since literally 2007 I've been under the impression that making the same edit 4 times in an article in a 24 hour period gets you blocked, and that's what I tell an awful lot of newbies. My understanding is that it doesn't matter whether your edit was the "bold" or the "revert" in the BRD cycle (and that it's doubly bad if yours was the "bold" edit, i.e. the initial edit that was contested). Where is that wrong? According to the interpretation I'm seeing here, for any dispute with two editors, the burden is actually on the "revert" side to find consensus against the new edits, lest they run into [what is defined here as] a 3RR violation (i.e. the 4th time someone makes their bold edit it's not a violation, but the 4th time it's reverted, it is). Now, obviously it should never get to four reverts, especially when non-newbies are involved, but what's the right thing here? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites The initial edit doesn't count. Only actual reverts count towards 3RR. It's important to note that 3RR is nothing but a procedural enforcement brightline. But, yes, in practice, this does indeed mean that the "R" in BRD inherently has a first-mover disadvantage as they will hit 3RR first. The "R" may be the reasonable one in the edit war, or the "R" may be stonewalling a good edit for a bad reason. They may deserve to hit 3RR first, or they may not. But the whole point is that we don't care about the merits of the content dispute, because edit warring is not permissible no matter how "right" you are. If you're a good faith, reasonable "R" who's trying to discuss, and your "B" is refusing to be reasonable and discuss, and is instead choosing to edit war, don't get baited into a 3RR vio, but report the situation here. If you explain that a user is edit warring over your objections and refusing to discuss, you can request a block. If we don't block them, we will likely at least restore the stable version and full protect the article, forcing them to discuss. If you let them trip you over 3RR and then report you, you'll probably be the one catching a one-sided procedural block. We're not enforcement robots who only care about 3RR vios, in fact I really wish we saw more users coming here before hitting 3RR. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most disappointing that someone can edit war to install a preferred version and the burden is on others to argue for the status quo. That seems contrary to the way just about everything else works around here. But sure, I appreciate that 3RR is about any revert, not necessarily the same material -- I suppose I just extrapolated from that and BRD a common sense conclusion: "forcing your preference four times in one day should obviously result in a block barring the usual extreme exceptions". Meh. No need to belabor this. Again, wasn't trying to get involved in this case. Was inquiring about a different case here and took a second because this challenged my understanding of how things work. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you're suggesting that we should not just blindly screen for 3RR violations and treat edit wars with common sense, that's exactly what I'm getting at. But when you imply that we place a burden on the reverter, that misses the point. The burden is shared equally. Neither side is favored inherently. That's an overarching principle. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Common sense says you can make a bold edit regarding a controversial element of an article and make said edit four times when it's repeatedly contested? I'm not challenging what you're saying is the case regarding the rules -- clarification is indeed what I was seeking. I'm just disappointed in the system that this is an acceptable scenario, and that the set-up of 3RR does indeed put the burden on the reverter, contrary to BRD (which, granted, is not policy). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I know you're not challenging me, we're just talking. I get where you're coming from, but like I said, 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. You should think of it as an emergency procedural backstop, and not interpret an ideal from it. Because the actual underlying ideals of EW policy is BRD. It's unfortunate that 3RR has the unintentional consequence of creating a paradoxical contradictory system in practice, because I think we're supposed to deal with edit wars fairly and with common sense and reason before they ever hit 3RR. Instead, nobody ever comes here until there's a 3RR vio for us to rubber-stamp. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Common sense says you can make a bold edit regarding a controversial element of an article and make said edit four times when it's repeatedly contested? I'm not challenging what you're saying is the case regarding the rules -- clarification is indeed what I was seeking. I'm just disappointed in the system that this is an acceptable scenario, and that the set-up of 3RR does indeed put the burden on the reverter, contrary to BRD (which, granted, is not policy). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you're suggesting that we should not just blindly screen for 3RR violations and treat edit wars with common sense, that's exactly what I'm getting at. But when you imply that we place a burden on the reverter, that misses the point. The burden is shared equally. Neither side is favored inherently. That's an overarching principle. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most disappointing that someone can edit war to install a preferred version and the burden is on others to argue for the status quo. That seems contrary to the way just about everything else works around here. But sure, I appreciate that 3RR is about any revert, not necessarily the same material -- I suppose I just extrapolated from that and BRD a common sense conclusion: "forcing your preference four times in one day should obviously result in a block barring the usual extreme exceptions". Meh. No need to belabor this. Again, wasn't trying to get involved in this case. Was inquiring about a different case here and took a second because this challenged my understanding of how things work. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BRD is a misnomer. Nobody abides by it. What's the point of it? CassiantoTalk 18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's neither policy nor guideline, and shouldn't be used as a stick. It may make sense sometimes, but a lot of times it doesn't. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The creation of Alec Guinness on stage and screen article, would appear to have solved the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:MONGO (Result: report declined)
Page: Don Bacon (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [20] 09:19, October 31, 2019
- [21] 12:50, October 31, 2019
- [22] 18:46, October 31, 2019
- [Rarely a 4th diff as he games the system. 3RR is not an entitlement.]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]
- Comments:
Fully recognize the brightline rule of 3RR and I never exceed 2RR on any page except in cases of vandalism reversion. However, Snooganssnoogans makes a history of edit warring. He rarely if ever does go to 4RR, but thats besides the point as he is STILL edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement. He's gaming the system. Other examples of edit warring/gaming the system just in last couple months:
- On RAISE Act: [25]16:27, October 13, 2019, [26]17:54, October 13, 2019, [27]18:52, October 13, 2019
- On Mitch McConnell:[28]07:18, September 2, 2019, [29]10:38, September 2, 2019, [30]11:06, September 2, 2019, followed a week after by this BLP violating edit summary[31]
- On Abby Martin, edit warring against several others:[32]08:12, October 29, 2019, [33]11:39, October 29, 2019 , followed by a partial revert [34]12:10, October 29, 2019--MONGO (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it "gaming the system" unless there was another revert just after 24 hours. And, the photo doesn't really seem to connect to any text anywho. Work it out on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: You're bringing me here for reverting you in a case where you brazenly failed to adhere to WP:BRD on the Don Bacon page and you yourself were edit-warring? I reverted the addition of new content to the page (which is my right per BRD) and started a talk page discussion on it, whereas you have twice restored the content without any discussion on the talk page in-between your edits (despite the fact that you're the one seeking to add new content). As for the content in question, it is absolutely ludicrous to turn the Wikipedia page of a congress member into a photo gallery of his time in the military. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- You did not comment till after your third revert and after I had logged off for the day. I stated on the talkpage that the man has a 29 year military career so naturally more usable images are likely available from that time period than the few years he has been in Congress. I did not add the content to begin with anyway...another editor did[35]. You seem to have a serious issue with the misunderstanding that this is a content issue, not a vandalism issue, yet you revert as if it is a vandalism issue. Thats called edit warring and I stopped after 2 reverts...which exceeds my usual 1RR only because your rationale is immaterial.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Adding that you could have removed the far poorer quality image of him where he is standing in front of the airplane. The new image is a high resolution and larger file by a long shot.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to swap pictures, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But then again, substantively trying to resolve the issue in BRD-style does not seem to have been the goal - the goal was just to pointlessly revert me and then drag me here when I inevitably refused to let you bully bad content into the article in violation of Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- If there is anyone who plays the bully in this matter, it's you. I could have gone for the the check and forced you to a 4RR but unlike you I dont edit war incessantly. If the admins want more evidence thats readily available as I only looked at some of the most recent examples. Since at least one admin already has said they question your ability to deliver NPOV content it would be wise to cease accusing anyone else of bad content. This isnt about content though...its a distinct matter involving edit warring and how you repeatedly game the system. I think you should be placed on a six month 1RR restriction.--MONGO (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is standard behavior for Snooganssnoogans. There might be hundreds of examples of the revert war games they play, but always careful not to exceed the bright line. Check their talk page history and see how many warnings have been placed, with few responses. I think an Arb case is needed for Snoog’s editing in general. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Declined — I'm sorry, but this just isn't the venue to address these sort of potential problems. Such a venue would be AN/I, where, for example, such specialized sanctions as a six month 1RR restriction, and so on, can be proposed and implemented. AN3, by contrast, doesn't really operate in this manner. It is a place where a single admin determines whether, above all other things, 3RR was violated. Although, indeed, sometimes, also whether a chronic edit warring that does not breach 3RR ought to come under sanctions, as well, but this happens more rarely. At any rate, it is difficult to determine from the diffs whether such sanction is due or undue here, one way or the other. I suggest if you still wish to pursue this, MONGO, take your concerns and proposal on how to best resolve them to AN/I and see what the community has to say about it. Relying on a single admin to make that determination is simply unlikely to happen. So I thought I would, at least, spare you the time and energy of continuing to contribute to this report. That said, if another admin feels that I erred in my evaluation here, they may overrule me and close this report as they fit without the need to notify or consult me further in any way whatsoever. El_C 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:101.109.175.0 reported by User:Gend07000 (Result: )
- Page
- List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 101.109.175.0 (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 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- 20:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 20:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 14:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 16:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 16:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 17:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 17:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 18:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 09:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"
- 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Disruptive editing and constantly try to editing the article without explanation and references Gend07000 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Gend07000: Can you articulate what is actually wrong with their edits? ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- The IP edited the article many times without sources or explanation, adding unrelated images and reverted my edit 3 times. I suspect the user won't use his real account to edit the article. The user real account is Oppufc, evidence: [36] [37] Gend07000 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Both warned)
Page: Alec Guinness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [38]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "you are at 3RR" and "Wally is at 3RR, by the way"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alec Guinness#Infobox
Comments:
- I'm not sure why this user would not have continued the conversation on the talk page. I will self-revert if that is appropriate, although this would seem to be a clear boomerang if SchroCat is serious. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Both User:SchroCat and User:Wallyfromdilbert are warned. The next person to revert the article may be blocked unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
MrOllie reported by User:Ultimâ (Result: No violation)
Page: Embedded system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to (before contribution):
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12 July 2019 [44]
- 14 July 2019 [45]
- 4 August 2019 [46]
- 29 September 2019 [47]
- 1 November 2019 [48]
- 1 November 2019 [49]
3RR warning:
- User Talk page [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Talk considered and updates made. [51]
Comments:
- Wiki policy advises against reverting (deleting) user contributions and rather proposing amendments instead in the talk page. This user has removed my contribution (which was adapted based on talk page) six times. This user has previous history of edit warring. Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Similarly this user is removing my contributions here:
Page: Cyber-physical system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(P.S. I can create a seperate report if advised) Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- What are you recommending? That Ultimâ and MrOllie be blocked? Repeating an edit to force preferred text is edit warring. Please use WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- No violation Perhaps it would be better to look at why your change is being described as "not an improvement" (it's also unsourced, by the way). Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:CoffeeCartier reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )
Page: Thunder from Down Under (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CoffeeCartier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56] – stable edition containing the disputed review material.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [57] – first revert, using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as rationale.
- [58] – second revert, same rationale. No point in me reverting further and encouraging 3RR.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:CoffeeCartier has been invited to start a discussion at the article talk page—it's his dispute, so discussion should be initiated by him.
Comments:
User:CoffeeCartier disagrees with the inclusion of a negative remark about Frank Gambale's singing on the Thunder from Down Under album, even though AllMusic staff reviews are RS per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I also don't feel as though WP:WEIGHT is an issue here, as three stars out of five is still a decent-to-positive rating, and several tracks are "listed as highlights". The reviewer's remarks about the vocals should be considered fair criticism, so User:CoffeeCartier's grievance is mostly invalid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:WilliamJE reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: )
Page: Template:Greensboro Swarm roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [60]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Comments:
There is no guideline discouraging adding a “see also” section on templates. This user continually reverts insisting that the fact that “see also” suggestions exist on “article” guidelines explicitly means these sections are disallowed on templates - this is not correct. See also sections between templates is not an uncommon practice (see NFL, NBA). I encouraged the user to start a consensus discussion to try and institute guidance in this, but he declines to do so. Rikster2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:2.248.51.198 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- William Rowan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2.248.51.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 15:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on William Rowan Hamilton. (TW)"
- 15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "/* November 2019 */ further comment"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
The page contains misleading information that the subject was Irish which is misleading. His nationality would have been of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at that time and this must be represented on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.51.198 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comments:
I gave a templated warning, and a personal note on their talk page asking them to discuss, but they aren't listening; now edit warring against multiple editors. I would block myself, but having reverted them a couple of times I'm probably too involved. GirthSummit (blether) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
User:162.251.9.27 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: )
- Page
- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 162.251.9.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Guillermo Gonzalez */"
- 19:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "deleted unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
- 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
- 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Its also clearly a SPA that is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)