EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
*Note that the inserted content is a copyvio as well. I'll post a revdel request to the article. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
*Note that the inserted content is a copyvio as well. I'll post a revdel request to the article. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Debresser]] reported by [[User:Aquillion]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Debresser]] reported by [[User:Aquillion]] (Result: Protected) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hamas}} |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hamas}} |
||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
:::::::*(5) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=959027243#User:Nishidani_reported_by_User:Debresser_(Result:_Three-revert_rule_not_applicable) He carries out his threat to report me for ostensibly violating the 3R rule.] What was the verdict? He still doesn't after a dozen reminders over a decade, understand 3RR, not to speak of 1R. |
:::::::*(5) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=959027243#User:Nishidani_reported_by_User:Debresser_(Result:_Three-revert_rule_not_applicable) He carries out his threat to report me for ostensibly violating the 3R rule.] What was the verdict? He still doesn't after a dozen reminders over a decade, understand 3RR, not to speak of 1R. |
||
:::::::*(6) He laid off a little, but at Hamas came back and repeated the same behavior, was '''again wrong''', admitted as such after extensive reminders, then spends three days justifying himself, attacking me for writing 'garbled'(reproduce text in a way that distorts the message) (no proof). What has he learnt? I should be 'sternly warned', Aquilion who spotted his violation of the rule 'admonished', and he should be allowed to go back to his life, which, on Wikipedia consists of tweaking 24/7, or reverting content editors like myself, who have to spend hours of research before they engage in most edits. I keep wondering, why has Debresser, despite a mountainslide of evidence over a decade showing he will not allow revert rules to get in the way of his obsessive sleuthing of my edits, allowed to get away, uniquely with this contempt of court.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::*(6) He laid off a little, but at Hamas came back and repeated the same behavior, was '''again wrong''', admitted as such after extensive reminders, then spends three days justifying himself, attacking me for writing 'garbled'(reproduce text in a way that distorts the message) (no proof). What has he learnt? I should be 'sternly warned', Aquilion who spotted his violation of the rule 'admonished', and he should be allowed to go back to his life, which, on Wikipedia consists of tweaking 24/7, or reverting content editors like myself, who have to spend hours of research before they engage in most edits. I keep wondering, why has Debresser, despite a mountainslide of evidence over a decade showing he will not allow revert rules to get in the way of his obsessive sleuthing of my edits, allowed to get away, uniquely with this contempt of court.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|p}} – 5 days. Though I hoped for a better outcome, it seems that protection is the answer. At least one editor here broke 1RR and possibly two. All the parties here have negotiation skills, so I hope they will use them on the talk page. The {{tl|Edit protect}} template can be used to ask for changes to a protected page. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Havsjö]] reported by [[User:Gooduserdude]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Havsjö]] reported by [[User:Gooduserdude]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 15:58, 6 October 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:QuestFour reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: )
Page: List of South Park episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuestFour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Comments: QuestFour also has a massive history of 3RR warnings on their talk page, and the third revert was done despite me giving him another warning and advice on their talk page to re-read the edit warring policies, as well as an attempt to reach a compromise on the article talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I attempted to reach out to them in an attempt to let them give their side of the story, but they are still editing in any page except this one. Should sanctions or a warning be placed on QuestFour until they give their side of the story here? Unnamed anon (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is it necessary for QuestFour to give their side of the story? Part of why I am reporting them is their massive history of edit war warnings. I am asking this because this report is close to being archived, and still has no administrator input. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- What story? you've been reverted by multiple users for making nonconsensual changes to the article, yet you undid all of them (12345) and even reported two of the users for edit warring, the very thing you were conducting. Furthermore, you keep mentioning my past mistakes, but ignoring the fact that you've been involved in far too many disputes and overall disruptiveness in your less-then-two-month old editing history, a point that has been stated by others (12). QuestFour (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- You have also been making nonconsensual changes. A 2-1 vote is barely a consensus, and there has only been objection to listing it in the table and treating it like an episode, not objection to briefly mentioning it, which, if you haven't noticed, I'm trying to reach a compromise, which you have been completely ignoring. You say I've been reverted by multiple users, but only one other user has reverted my edits to that page, and that was because I made the mistake of calling the special the season 24 premiere in the same edit, not because of the movie. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- What story? you've been reverted by multiple users for making nonconsensual changes to the article, yet you undid all of them (12345) and even reported two of the users for edit warring, the very thing you were conducting. Furthermore, you keep mentioning my past mistakes, but ignoring the fact that you've been involved in far too many disputes and overall disruptiveness in your less-then-two-month old editing history, a point that has been stated by others (12). QuestFour (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I am getting extremely worried about what should be done in his situation. Neither me nor QuestFour have edit warred in the past few days, but we did on the day I reported it, and I would like to know whether administrative action is needed against either me or QuestFour, especially now that this is next in line to being archived now. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Gooduserdude reported by User:Havsjö (Result: )
Page: Greater Germanic Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gooduserdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=972467485
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981587701&oldid=981491401
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981608924&oldid=981597876
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981613703&oldid=981612704
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981614489&oldid=981614306
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981428965&oldid=981333061
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich#infobox
Comments: For the page regarding future plans to merge Germanic area of Europe into some form of a Pan-Germanic state by the Nazis, Gooduserdude has included a country-infobox. Explanations that such a "strictly defined" infobox is unsuitable for such a loosely planned entity in a article discussing the sum of various plans towards that end falls on deaf ears. The infobox is not only therefore out of place, but contains no actual information, just regurgitation from a Nazi Germany infobox; repeating flag, leader and even driving side(!) It contains no actual information except for a previously existing map and vague proposals synthesized from the article content as the dates of "propoals" and "hypothetical establishment" (i.e. no actual sourced information giving an overview of this (non)-"state"). All this is presented in a very inaccurate way through this infobox. Reverts to the long-standing Good Article rated version is constantly reverted in-turn. After TALK-page discussion and the comment "yes i 100% agree with you" following me explaining this reasoning as the reason for reverting away the infobox the page is still reverted to include it again --Havsjö (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- oh really who is one edit warring here, eh? (any admin who look into this case will find out who is the one adding (me user:gooduserdude) and reverting (user:Havsjö) in the first place)
Diffs of the user:Havsjö's blatant content blanking edit warring: Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981332933
- 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981491401
- 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981597867
- 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981612704
- 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981614306
- 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981635876
i never said i 100% agree with user:Havsjö on your edit warring content blanking, no what i 100% agree with user:Havsjö comment "Why discuss this total non-addition?" he is not willing to discuss it without reverting to massive edit warring, i would be very happy to keep the current whatever version and discuss it but, unfortunaltly for user:Havsjö it is "Why discuss this total non-addition?" yes why bother discuss something with an edit warrior that does not even want to discuss it, that is what i agreed 100% on, also he is since he is the one who made the first revert, makes it his edit war not mine Gooduserdude (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- regarding the edit warring on my behalf, i apologize and i will refrain from edit warring in the future, i will follow wikipolicy such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD also please take into consideration that i am a relatively new user and also thank you for this valuable lesson and good day Gooduserdude (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Գարիկ Ավագյան reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Գարիկ Ավագյան (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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Not per se edit warring but 3RR violation. Especially the international reaction map was removed without a consensus. He claims this is the consensus by other users. Here @KajenCAT: has explained that Turkic Council is not a NGO but a supranational organisation. Here you can see that the same method was used here for Turkic countries (except Azerbaijan). Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I've been waiting for this. First of all, my edits are explained. About the biased map, on the map, countries that expressed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan in hostilities, while the whole world, including Armenia itself, recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. On the other hand, you can support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but condemn military action. Paradox, no? Also, countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan. A CSTO member cannot speak for the support of the opposite side, in which case he will lose his membership. The map is biased and propagandistic. Not surprised on this warning from an experienced user. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here it says: "In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan." How is this propagandistic? Did this statement happen without the consent of other Turkic Council members? I doubt. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, you think that there is no difference between the Turkic Council and MFA of other countries? Anyway, support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not = support military action. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you look at the map's talk page, I said that they should have different shade of colour. But support of territorial integrity is indeed a support, did not see coming from other countries. I do not want you to be blocked, but you reverted others different times. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Գարիկ Ավագյան, it seems Beshogur is hellbent on getting "his way, or no way". Admins, please take a look at the talk page on Stepanakert, he has unjustly reported myself for monitoring/reverting recent vandalism. He is refusing to talk reasonably and make his concerns clear on the talk page..even after 3 requests. This behavior is not acceptable. Archives908 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Update- I have now politely asked him 4 times to make his concerns clear. Archives908 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Archives908, I know perfectly. This is not the first time when users of Turkish-Azerbaijani origin are trying to suspend users who write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editings for their biased edits. I've already reported to the administration. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Գարիկ Ավագյան. I agree, this user's Anti-Armenian agenda is becoming ever more clear. Feel free to link your report to the Stepankert talk page if you haven't done so already. Perfect example of not willing to respectfully communicate with other editors, among others. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Archives908, I know perfectly. This is not the first time when users of Turkish-Azerbaijani origin are trying to suspend users who write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editings for their biased edits. I've already reported to the administration. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you look at the map's talk page, I said that they should have different shade of colour. But support of territorial integrity is indeed a support, did not see coming from other countries. I do not want you to be blocked, but you reverted others different times. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, you think that there is no difference between the Turkic Council and MFA of other countries? Anyway, support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not = support military action. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here it says: "In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan." How is this propagandistic? Did this statement happen without the consent of other Turkic Council members? I doubt. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation, although for what it's worth it looks like the dispute over the map specifically is currently no consensus leaning against inclusion, and my understanding is that the status quo ante is to not include the map. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Beshogur, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Rosguill, and Archives908: Just my opinion about this. As the creator of the map that was part of the polemic, I am forced to defend myself despite having said that I did not want to participate in any debate about this. Due to, in my opinion, an unfair result, I must speak up. The user Beshogur has been accused of the alleged bias of the map when he has not edited it once. Second, only judging by Beshogur's actions in the conflict article (I don't know about any other edits elsewhere) I see no reason for blocking by anti-Armenian because he has tried to put forward his arguments and debate the issue while the user Գարիկ Ավագյան has not. I do agree with Rosguill that it is better to maintain the status quo. Regards, KajenCAT (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
User:172.78.51.90 reported by User:KidAd (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Victoria Spartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.78.51.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user discussion on my talk page
Comments: User has repeatedly inserted material from sources, copy-and-pasted directly into the article with a full URL. After my two reverts, the IP went to my talk page here and here, claiming that their edits were covered by "fair use guidelines." I explained here that their interpretation of "fair use" did not provide justification for copy-pasting content from sources into the article. I left a template warning on their talk page and a warning of this 3RR report, but they have not replied to either warning on their talk page. As I formulated this report, the IP again replied to me on my talk page, [13], casting WP:ASPERSIONS with From what I gather from your talk page there is something entirely suspicious in what you're doing on Wiki
. Note: I reverted an identical edit to the same page on September 29. While the edit was made by a different IP, they are both linked to Valparaiso, Indiana. The IP has since been reverted but another user, but I have no expectation that they will stop based on prior behavior. KidAd talk 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1. KidAd and an associate have continually deleted content that is factual, sourced, quoted, and used under Fair Use Guidelines.
2. All they've done is delete the content instead of attempting to rectify what their claimed problems with the Controversies section are, and in fact an edit war.
3. That appears to prove KidAd and associate are, in fact, engaged in scrubbing the Victoria Spartz page instead of helping expand it.
4. It is unethical and IIRC against Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
A reply from my talk page:
1. Hit-and-run quotes are inserting text without attribution, usually unrelated to the subject. That is NOT what the Controversies section is - which proves again that you and your associates are simply scrubbing the page.
2. (a) they are very short quotes; (b) very few quotes, only those necessary to clarify the controversies; (c) the attributions are included; (d) in case you and your associates are unaware, Fair Use includes use for research - of which the Controversies section is.
3. All your 'several different editors' is you and your associates using a bullying technique and exploitation of the rules well known on Wiki and used by certain cliques. That is exactly what is going on here.
4. You and your associates are simply scrubbing the page and pursuing an edit war to do it - against policy and completely unethical.
Addition:
KidAd has brought in two other associates to help keep scrubbing the page of the Controversies section and pursuing an edit war with a well known bullying technique and exploitation of the rules to make it appear as if I am the one doing it.
As apparently registered editors, they should be held to the standards that preclude all such actions by them. It's those actions that continue to keep Wiki under negative criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I ask Administration to come in and take a look at the Controversies section and to reformat it if there is actually a problem with the format; to stop KidAd and associates from continually scrubbing the page and pursuing their edit war; and enforce sanctions against them for their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- 5RR
- 6RR (albeit not within the 24-hour window)
- Note that the inserted content is a copyvio as well. I'll post a revdel request to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Debresser reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Protected)
Page: Hamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Revert again, despite 1RR. 1 this editor doesn't know how to use references and breaks code, which allows the 1RR exception 2. this editor made a wholesale revert of my edits, including the completely unjustified revert of typo fixing and copyedits, and I have trouted the editor on their talkpage.."
- 18:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Incorrect references code. Also, please use normal references, not notes."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Here.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Here.
Comments:
I noticed this when it scrolled across my watchlist with the edit summary, above, literally announcing they were intentionally violating the WP:1RR on this page; while they say they were doing it because of broken code, the page was not significantly impacted, and it's hard to see that justifying such a sweeping revert, especially given that they were plainly in a content dispute over the bulk of the material they reverted. User was warned by someone else here (further discussion makes it clear they saw it), though given that they announced their intention in their edit summary it's probably not necessary. Further discussion about the dispute at hand (including further warnings) is here. Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- user:Nishidani has broken 1RR too why didn't you reported him? He removed word militant as description of organization two times?
- [[14]] first edit removing militant
- [15] 1 revert by Nishidani
- [16] 2 revert by Nishidani
- I can make separate report if needed --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are far too experienced an editor, Shrike, to muck up a spurious argument here without it looking rather embarrassingly disingenuous. Debresser egregiously (he admits it) broke the IR rule, and your inclusion of me in the report is a distraction. The question was, retain or elide the use of 'militant' as the defining epithet for Hamas. Unlike Debresser I engaged with the talk page, where two long term editors expressed their dissatisfaction with 'militant' as it stands against an IP newbie with almost zero edits on Wikipedia. Since I agreed with their point that militant alone was pointy, I retained it while qualifying it with an expansion of the sentence in which it occurred. Bizarrely you claim this is my first revert. So this is obviously not a revert, it is a compromise between Shrike's position, and that of User:Selfstudier,and User:ImTheIP.
- Therefore, the question is what was Debresser doing, walking in to revert me without discussion on the talk page, and then, when I restored my edit (Ist and only revert) reverting me again with an open acknowledgement that he was breaking a rule we apply rigorously in the I/P area? On my page, worse still, he said my edit 'provoked him', I mplying that his expunging of my careful edit, which started this, was not 'provocative'. That indeed displays a battlefield mentality, particularly in my regard, since he does this repeatedly. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nishidani's contribution, which admittedly messed up codewise but was not really hard to fix, was useful and I have partially restored the most useful part of it. Debresser's actions seem a little bit cavalier, I can't help but notice that he frequently attends Nishidani's edits in combat mode.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was a revert of long standing version but I let the admins to decide Shrike (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I actually think your edit is a good one --Shrike (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Shrike, your evidence for a 'revert' consists in adding or removing one word, 'militant'. In what you call my first revert, that word is kept there, respecting the long-standing version. In this, I collaborated with your revert, refined the book reference you introduced from Kear by giving precise pages, and I compromised by clarifying the other editor's preference for 'nationalist' by finding in Kear, whom you introduced, a clarification of Hamas's perception of itself as a national liberation movement. This is how one is supposed to edit, collaboratively. Debresser just barged in, reverted, and reverted. He did so in an explicitly in-your-face defiance of a fundamental rule, breaking which usually ends up with an AE sanction. I would have reported Debresser there, my third report in 14 years, but I'm not allowed to make reports or comment at AE - I'll never know why. That is intolerable since, as I showed on the talk page, he hadn't even read my edit before excising it. So, can we focus on this maverick insouciance to rule-observant and to collaborative editing by Debresser?Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nishidani's contribution, which admittedly messed up codewise but was not really hard to fix, was useful and I have partially restored the most useful part of it. Debresser's actions seem a little bit cavalier, I can't help but notice that he frequently attends Nishidani's edits in combat mode.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nishdani added code that was formatted wrongly and resulted in garbled text.[17] When I reverted him, he knowingly repeated his edit.[18] The knowingly part follows from his edit summary. Unfortunately, Nishidani, although a long-time editor, often disregards the need to write well-formatted text.
- As to the justification for my revert, despite the fact that I was aware of 1RR on this article, I was sure that an edit resulting in garbled text may be reverted. Much like vandalism. Now, without calling Nishidani's first edit vandalism, but his second revert could very well be called such. As EdJohnston pointed out on my talkpage, that is not one of the exceptions in WP:NOT3RR, and I was wrong. On a sidenote, I think that undoing an edit that is technically problematic should be an exception.
- I may add that in his second revert, Nishidani also reverted additional edits of mine, with any reason whatsoever. Like changing Reuters back to Retuers, and restoring the word "but" at the beginning of a sentence. If you all are going to be worked up about me reverting an edit that garbled the text of this article, then I think Nishidani's second edit deserves an honorable mention as well. For both reasons mentioned above (knowingly restoring garbled text and undoing clear improvements without reason). Debresser (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- And since we are here already, I think the edit summary of the second revert "I did a major revision of the page, the top contributor, with 18% of text to my credit." reeks of WP:OWN issues. Which may explain the eagerness with which he made his second and very problematic revert, and is an additional reason Nishidani should be reprimanded for his second edit. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- We need not be here. You were informed by one of the most experienced administrators we have, writing on your page without prompting from anyone, that your revert was inappropriate. You have had half a day to follow his advice and revert. You are obliged to do so, immediately, and not argue the point (I won't reply to the numerous errancies in the above representation of what I did but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=next&oldid=981679107 I restored your correction of Reuters). Now, be responsible, don't argue, just revert. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Debresser appears to be stalling. He was advised to revert by EdJohnston, after this report was made. He undertook to examine it, admitted he was wrong, was asked therefore to revert again, and, apparently, won't. Anyone familiar with his record will, I think, recall that this is a standard response (stonewalling) when called to order for an infraction. He won't budge. I very rarely call for sanctions, don't haunt complaint pages, but find my work here often disrupted by his stalking, even with nonsensical challenges (the utter 'garbling' of clear text here for example, cp.here). The page he disrupted with his double revert requires serious review, standardization, and close control of over 500 sources, and other editors should be given an assurance they can work calmly without this nagging at their heels, this jagging a spoke into the wheel to force wiki revision of difficult pages into a standstill. Inadvertent errors are understandable, conscious rule-breaking less so, but stubborn refusal to play by the rules, reverting as asked, is gaming, and should be sanctioned. Otherwise the editor in question is being accorded special privileges. Only a sanction, often avoided in the past with his infractions, will send a clear message that he should (a) read the rules closely, applying them after over a decade and a half of familiarity with them and (b) not to rush at reverting edits without either reading them, reading up on the rationale, or using the talk page. I don't stalk him, yet he considers he has a right to provoke me because my editing, wholly unrelated to what he does, feels like a personal provocation to him. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have a real life. I replied to EdJohnston on my talkpage (although I really don't see what he wants from me at this stage).
- Stalking? Not so.
- You are an editor with, I think, over 10 years of editing experience, and still garble pages, and then you want me sanctioned for undoing your deliberate garbling of text?! That is rich!
- I have acknowledged my mistake, so this report can be closed. However, I think Nishidani clearly has several issues, in general and on this article specifically, and I think he should be sternly warned to be more careful in his edits, and avoid the Hamas article, with which he seems to have a serious WP:OWN issue.
- For good measure we should admonish the reporting editor, User:Aquillion, as well, since I really think that in view of the fact that Nishidani re-introduced garbled text in his second, deliberate revert, this report was really unnecessary, and reeks of being pointy. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Debresser, he wants you to revert to a worse version just so you can satisfy the "revert" even though it will ruin the article. He's done the same to me in the past.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Throwing adjectives around ('worse') or implying I intend smugly, by getting D to respect policy and his obligations as an editor, to 'ruin' the page I'm endeavouring to fix, is vacuous. I won't burden this page with the evidence for your assertions, but have posted the differences on the Hamas talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Debresser, he wants you to revert to a worse version just so you can satisfy the "revert" even though it will ruin the article. He's done the same to me in the past.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Debresser appears to be stalling. He was advised to revert by EdJohnston, after this report was made. He undertook to examine it, admitted he was wrong, was asked therefore to revert again, and, apparently, won't. Anyone familiar with his record will, I think, recall that this is a standard response (stonewalling) when called to order for an infraction. He won't budge. I very rarely call for sanctions, don't haunt complaint pages, but find my work here often disrupted by his stalking, even with nonsensical challenges (the utter 'garbling' of clear text here for example, cp.here). The page he disrupted with his double revert requires serious review, standardization, and close control of over 500 sources, and other editors should be given an assurance they can work calmly without this nagging at their heels, this jagging a spoke into the wheel to force wiki revision of difficult pages into a standstill. Inadvertent errors are understandable, conscious rule-breaking less so, but stubborn refusal to play by the rules, reverting as asked, is gaming, and should be sanctioned. Otherwise the editor in question is being accorded special privileges. Only a sanction, often avoided in the past with his infractions, will send a clear message that he should (a) read the rules closely, applying them after over a decade and a half of familiarity with them and (b) not to rush at reverting edits without either reading them, reading up on the rationale, or using the talk page. I don't stalk him, yet he considers he has a right to provoke me because my editing, wholly unrelated to what he does, feels like a personal provocation to him. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- We need not be here. You were informed by one of the most experienced administrators we have, writing on your page without prompting from anyone, that your revert was inappropriate. You have had half a day to follow his advice and revert. You are obliged to do so, immediately, and not argue the point (I won't reply to the numerous errancies in the above representation of what I did but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=next&oldid=981679107 I restored your correction of Reuters). Now, be responsible, don't argue, just revert. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I wasn't directly involved in the dispute, the crux of it is clearly the word 'militant' and how to frame or use it; since his preferred version of the handling for that word remains in place from his revert, and there's no indication that the dispute has been resolved on talk, it is obviously not settled yet.
- Regarding the formatting issue, it was not, of course, necessary to revert that aspect in order to fix the formatting. If Debresser had only fixed the formatting, it would not even have been a revert, and clearly no one would have objected; the person he was in a dispute with would have been duly embarrassed by their unintentional error and that would be the end of it. If he had fixed the formatting and re-instated his less controversial fixes and improvements to the text, it would have been a revert, but, again, I certainly wouldn't have bothered to report it. But he also used this as a justification to revert the disputed wording of the lead - going from
seeking legitimation through the provision of social services and militant engagement in armed challenges to the Israeli occupation
to simplymilitant
, which was precisely part of his first revert - and that is plainly a WP:1RR violation, of contested article text, in the middle of a dispute over it, which is plainly more serious than a simple error. It was totally unnecessary to do so in order to fix an obvious unclosed tag - I just glanced at the source of the version he reverted myself, and it took ten seconds to identify where to put the curly braces to fix the issue. Even if he found himself unable to identify the problem, and was determined to fix it immediately, it would have been simple enough for him to take the last working version and copy-paste the changes into it so his edit would not be a revert; but he plainly wanted to revert the disputed text as well. And, more generally, the fact that he still seems to think he did nothing wrong or that people are trying to catch him on a mere technicality is a problem. It's the exact opposite - "don't repeatedly revert disputed text on a page with a WP:1RR restriction" is a clear, ironclad, red-line rule. "They missed closing a tag, so I'm going to blanket-revert the entire page" is reaching for a technicality. When you see an editor in a dispute you're with screw up the formatting, your response ought to be "that sucks, I'll spend the ten seconds necessary to fix it, then hash out the rest on talk" rather than "aha, a chance to blanket-revert their entire edit!" I don't care what happens this time, but he needs to avoid doing that again, and understand that he has to be more careful around the boundaries of WP:1RRs, even in situations like this. It is understandably frustrating to be put in a position where the right thing to do would be to fix an error in a version you disagree with, but WP:1RR is still meant to be a red-line rule for a reason. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)- The behavioural problem here: reverting me successively, in defiance of the rules, and, when brought to ANI or AE being sanctioned, and then engaging in extensive haggling to get the sanction reduced, and managed to succeed, only to return to the harassment almost immediately has gone on for over a decade. Just a few incidents from this year-
- Notwithstanding his antipathy for me, In the past I have at times collegially asked his advice on things he actually knows about. And the interaction was positive, briefly (October 14). a mere ten days later he was for the nth time violating 1R, because I was involved.
- (1) In April he bitches about me on his talk page. See here (obsession)
- (2) In mid-May he was blocked 1 week for edit warring precisely regarding 3R, the easiest rule to understand
- (3) Soon after his light sentence for what is an ingrained, repeated refusal to learn the rules, he complained on my talk page again, with a threat
- (4) So I reminded him of what his problem is, repeated violation of the same basic rules, repeated undertakings to learn and improve, followed by the same behavior. He refuses to mend his ways. His response?
- (5) He carries out his threat to report me for ostensibly violating the 3R rule. What was the verdict? He still doesn't after a dozen reminders over a decade, understand 3RR, not to speak of 1R.
- (6) He laid off a little, but at Hamas came back and repeated the same behavior, was again wrong, admitted as such after extensive reminders, then spends three days justifying himself, attacking me for writing 'garbled'(reproduce text in a way that distorts the message) (no proof). What has he learnt? I should be 'sternly warned', Aquilion who spotted his violation of the rule 'admonished', and he should be allowed to go back to his life, which, on Wikipedia consists of tweaking 24/7, or reverting content editors like myself, who have to spend hours of research before they engage in most edits. I keep wondering, why has Debresser, despite a mountainslide of evidence over a decade showing he will not allow revert rules to get in the way of his obsessive sleuthing of my edits, allowed to get away, uniquely with this contempt of court.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected – 5 days. Though I hoped for a better outcome, it seems that protection is the answer. At least one editor here broke 1RR and possibly two. All the parties here have negotiation skills, so I hope they will use them on the talk page. The {{Edit protect}} template can be used to ask for changes to a protected page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Havsjö reported by User:Gooduserdude (Result: )
Page: Greater Germanic Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Havsjö (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981752630
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981332933
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981491401
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981597867
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981612704
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981614306
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981635876
Comments: i never said i 100% agree with on User:Havsjö edit warring content blanking, no what i 100% agree with user:Havsjö comment "Why discuss this total non-addition?" he is not willing to discuss it without reverting to massive edit warring, i would be very happy to keep the current whatever version and discuss it but, unfortunaltly for user:Havsjö it is "Why discuss this total non-addition?" yes why bother discuss something with an edit warrior that does not even want to discuss the subject, that is what i agreed 100% on with him Gooduserdude (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Keywan faramarzi reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )
Page: Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keywan faramarzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Seemingly the same account as [25]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: One of senior members of the group is a Keywan Faramarzi. COI is also possible. Pahlevun (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Telsho (Result: )
Page: Singapore-United States relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (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: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] – User initially accused me of edit warring, and when I had asked to explain why they continuously use the the same claim of "no consensus" despite there being no connection whatsoever to the other topics that were discussed on the talk page. Not long later, they had reverted again with an almost identical edit summary. Telsho (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- For reference, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this page.
- The LTA page can be found here.
- The relevant SPI can be found here. Transcendental36 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, very knowledgeable, definitely not suspicious 1.5 week old account. How is this related again, bringing up an archived SPI and a LTA of another user? Telsho (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- To put it politely: why the fudge am I still being harassed by this account? This was a clear block more than a month ago. Did anyone notice they tried to delete Transcendental36’s comment here? Yeah... Thats not the first or even the second time they’ve done that on this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- For heaven’s sake just look at [31]... Thats nine (plus or minus one, its a bit hard to tell) reverts since late august edit warring the same questionable content back into the lead of South Korea, that they have the gall to accuse me of edit warring is unbelievable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Who's harassing who, HEB? or formerly known as Horse Eye Jack? I'm not the one stalking and reverting other users contributions and edits. Anyway, I'll just keep it short. Also, your second statement is a clear fallacy if one actually reads the diffs, they were not being reverted just by me. If I used that same analyzer on multiple articles that you were involved in, I'm sure I can find many incidents where you reverted more than 3–4 times, especially on your old account which you conveniently forgot the password for. Telsho (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- For heaven’s sake just look at [31]... Thats nine (plus or minus one, its a bit hard to tell) reverts since late august edit warring the same questionable content back into the lead of South Korea, that they have the gall to accuse me of edit warring is unbelievable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2020 (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. The only reason I'm not closing this thread is I'm debating if a boomerang block is in order for the slow-motion edit war by Telsho. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: at least take away their Wikipedia:Twinkle privileges, they’ve used it to do all of this which is clearly abusing Twinkle. WP:TWINKLEABUSE suggests that the penalties for so egregiously abusing Twinkle should be severe but I dont know it thats really enforced in practice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello User:C.Fred. I would recommend a one-week block of User:Telsho for long term edit warring based on these links:
- Previous 48-hour block for edit warring issued at this noticeboard on 26 September.
- Hello User:C.Fred. I would recommend a one-week block of User:Telsho for long term edit warring based on these links:
- @C.Fred: at least take away their Wikipedia:Twinkle privileges, they’ve used it to do all of this which is clearly abusing Twinkle. WP:TWINKLEABUSE suggests that the penalties for so egregiously abusing Twinkle should be severe but I dont know it thats really enforced in practice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- My warning to Telsho for edit warring on this same article, Singapore–U.S. relations, issued on 2 October.
- One of two attempts by Telsho to delete others' comments from this noticeboard.
- –EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Zefr reported by User:192.26.8.4 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page: Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32] 192.26.8.4 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (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. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)