LordRogalDorn (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
||
== [[User:KIENGIR]] reported by [[User:LordRogalDorn]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hungarian irredentism}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|KIENGIR}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977370470&oldid=977370276] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977580248&oldid=977370470 |
|||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977692578&oldid=977580248 |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KIENGIR&diff=978032605&oldid=978026922] |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_irredentism#Northern_Transylvania_population] |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> |
|||
The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. Unless he can provide sources for his counter-claims, this discussion will likely not go anyway. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior. |
|||
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD_misuse |
|||
I believe the other user is filibustering, since he insists that "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" despite not being able or willing to provide a source for his claims on the talk page. |
|||
[[User:LordRogalDorn|LordRogalDorn]] ([[User talk:LordRogalDorn|talk]]) 15:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)<br /> |
Revision as of 15:16, 12 September 2020
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:Devonian Wombat reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: Declined)
Page: Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Comments: User:Devonian Wombat has edit warred over the inclusion of the Life and Liberty Party on the Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election page. I advised him on his talk page that as there was a consensus on the talk page to include the party's candidate, see here, and as such further advised that he should refrain from reverting further. Instead of taking it to the talk page, he immediately elected to revert the page once again. I believe pages related to post-1932 US presidential elections have a 1RR rule for edit warring rather than the usual 3.
- Declined Unless the article is under a one-revert restriction (and I don't think it is), two reverts do not rise to the level of edit warring. Salvio 09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Salvio_giuliano all post 1932 American politics pages are under the 1RR sanction.XavierGreen (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- ARBAP2 pages are not automatically under 1RR. Such a page *may* be placed under 1RR if an admin decides to do so and if it is logged at WP:DSLOG/2020#American politics 2. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Russia666777 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: 2001 Belarusian presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Russia666777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:45, 10 September 2020 (repeating this revert from July)
- 15:38, 10 September 2020
- 17:00, 10 September 2020
- 17:14, 10 September 2020
Editor has returned to edit warring at this article after a break of six weeks, also continuing with personal attacks (see previous)
User was warned prior to their final revert that they would break 3RR if they did it again. They were previously warned in July about their conduct on this article. Number 57 16:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
- Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
User:102.158.63.44 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page: Zirid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 102.158.63.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC) to 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Zirid dynasty."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
It's worth noting that this IP editor is restoring the edits made by 102.156.108.36. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected Salvio 17:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:18C:CC00:61A0:3CC9:720A:EE68:5388 reported by User:ZLMedia (Result: Blocked)
Page: List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:18C:CC00:61A0:3CC9:720A:EE68:5388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977765424 by ZLMedia (talk)"
- 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977763572 by ZLMedia (talk)"
- 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977759031 by ZLMedia (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Please look into the IP address range of 2601:18C:CC00:61A0, as also seen in the edit history of One Magnificent Morning. They have persistently reverted edits on multiple articles without citation as to why, and continue to do so under multiple anonymous IP addresses with this similar IPv6 range. --ZLMedia 02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Special:Contributions/2601:18C:CC00:61A0::/64 blocked one year. User has never posted to talk and does not use edit summaries. They were revert warring here as well as at One Magnificent Morning. Blocked as long as 6 months in the past. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:BCDB:E121:D39:529C/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Johnsmith2116 reported by User:Wjemather (Result: Blocked)
Page: U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Comments:
User continued to revert, even after being reverted by another editor and disregarding talk page discussion. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This user above (wjemather) turned back a legitimate edit of mine several times without a good cause to do so. I do not want trouble. This user (wjemather) has been targeting me in a stalk like manner for months. I tried explaining my edit today several times, but it was a lost cause. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked Salvio 16:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:93.164.22.202 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Semi)
Page: Take That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.164.22.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]
Comments:
93.164.22.202 is editing against rough consensuses on Talk:Take That (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), and have added zero sources to support the changes they proposed have supported their proposed changes with one source that contradicts said consensuses. They also repeatedly blanket reverted updates to date formats, the removal of an unreliable source (Metro (British newspaper)), and the alphabetization of categories.
When I referred 93.164.22.202 to WP:CON and reminded them that Wikipedia has policies, they stated: I dont think so ;) a lot of the articles on wikipedia has very much false information ;)
. KyleJoantalk 18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected six months. See the log for all the past protections. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:98.114.227.211 reported by User:Crboyer (Result: Blocked )
Page: Larry Kudlow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.114.227.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- User is deleting content they find "libelous" to the subject even though it's been properly sourced. Other editors have reverted their edits already. I reported them to AIV, but I was instructed to go here. Crboyer (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked for clear disruptive behavior for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:178.241.138.115 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Range blocked)
Page: Medes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.246.56.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/178.241.138.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/178.246.10.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to use the talk page.
Comments:
- A cursory check of the sources, one quote has been altered and not taken verbatim from the source, thus it is WP:OR. IP has also deleted references that give different perspective of Medes/Kurds connections. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lot of disruption from the /16 range overall on Turkish and Kurdish articles. Blocked for 48 hours. Message me if disruption resumes. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:97.112.201.44 reported by User:Bmf 051 (Result: )
Page: Ricardo López (stalker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.112.201.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:97.112.201.44#September 2020
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ricardo_López (stalker)#Whether he shouts "This is for you!" or "Victory!"
Comments:
User:KIENGIR reported by User:LordRogalDorn (Result: )
Page: Hungarian irredentism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977580248&oldid=977370470
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=977692578&oldid=977580248
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]
Comments:
The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. Unless he can provide sources for his counter-claims, this discussion will likely not go anyway. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior.
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD_misuse
I believe the other user is filibustering, since he insists that "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" despite not being able or willing to provide a source for his claims on the talk page.
LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)