→User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: ): new section |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: ): no violation, page protected for a week |
||
Line 572: | Line 572: | ||
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Tenebrae]] reported by [[User:KyleJoan]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Tenebrae]] reported by [[User:KyleJoan]] (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week ) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Amanda Kloots}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Amanda Kloots}} <br /> |
||
Line 588: | Line 588: | ||
Tenebrae included a primary source in addition to a secondary source to verify a claim. Later, a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present, which reinforces [[WP:RSPRIMARY]], was generated per [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Primary sources to verify secondary sources?|this discussion]]. After I removed the primary source, Tenebrae repeatedly referenced an irrelevant guideline (i.e., [[WP:PRIMARY]]) and told me that there was no consensus to remove the primary source. [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
Tenebrae included a primary source in addition to a secondary source to verify a claim. Later, a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present, which reinforces [[WP:RSPRIMARY]], was generated per [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Primary sources to verify secondary sources?|this discussion]]. After I removed the primary source, Tenebrae repeatedly referenced an irrelevant guideline (i.e., [[WP:PRIMARY]]) and told me that there was no consensus to remove the primary source. [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
* {{AN3|noex}} Page protected for a week. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:42, 11 December 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:Cognissonance reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)
Page: Tenet (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cognissonance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "remove unused parameters + MOS:SEAOFBLUE"
- 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "too many links + nationalities come later in the paragraph + consensus"
- 12:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992630696 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) following consensus, however, is a policy and you're violating it"
- 08:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992615887 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) the "and" was part of the consensus per MOS:SEAOFBLUE"
- 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992568474 by Debresser (talk) the consensus was to have specifically these genres in this order"
- 10:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992418843 by UnknownBat (talk) breach of consensus"
- 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992075146 by Utkarsh555 (talk) (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 08:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992628893 by Cognissonance (talk) that is not a policy, and not a part of any discussion I can find in the talk archives, and you have now reverted three other editors in the past 24 hours"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tenet (film)#"science fiction action-thriller film" or "action-thriller and science fiction film"
Comments:
Three editors have reverted this editor's insistence on including the word "and" in the lead for a film genre. They have provided no policies or discussions to support their claims. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus: Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 3. Next time, actually look for it. Cognissonance (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that archive, and I do not see the consensus about the word "and" as that was only briefly discussed, only a consensus for the particular genres. You have now reverted a fifth time [1]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- At 03:54 on 7 December Cognissonance took out the word 'and' from the list of genres. Is this a concession to the ciriticisms here? If so, maybe the report could be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe this report can be closed with no action. I appreciate Cognissonance finding a compromise on the talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- At 03:54 on 7 December Cognissonance took out the word 'and' from the list of genres. Is this a concession to the ciriticisms here? If so, maybe the report could be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that archive, and I do not see the consensus about the word "and" as that was only briefly discussed, only a consensus for the particular genres. You have now reverted a fifth time [1]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, this report can not be closed, because Cognissonance did not take out the word "and"; instead he took out a whole genre![2]
- This user has severe WP:OWN issues at Tenet (film) (and other film articles). He comes along once or twice a day and simply starts reverting everything he doesn't like. I had noticed this behavior of his already a few months ago, and have pointed it out to him more than once.[3][4] But today he really crossed the line, when he decided that his talkpage proposal at a very limited discussion that is less than 24 hours old gave him the right to revert a crucial addition to the Tenet article that was only recently discussed for literally a whole month with many participants (now archived at Talk:Tenet_(film)/Archive_3).
- I stress that this report is about the behavioral issue, not the content issue (which was conclusively settled two months ago , as mentioned above, and as Cognissonance knows very well, just that he didn't WP:LIKE that conclusion overly much). By the way, during that previous discussion he did precisely the same thing, making an edit[5] while the discussion had gone only 2 out of the 30 days it would last in the end. Just showing that this is really an issue with this editor. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Cognissonance has now started reverting again to reinsert the word "and" into the lead [6]. I agree that there seem to be OWN issues here, and the behavior does not seem to be stopping. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- He continues: [7]. Cognissonance has now officially violated 3RR. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring to restore the word 'and' to the opening sentence. They have continued to revert since the report was opened. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:BaldiBasicsFan reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: No action)
Page: Care Bears: Unlock the Magic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BaldiBasicsFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992667040 by The Grand Delusion (talk) The source is WP:OR, thus that revert is WP:DE"
- 23:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992570219 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) Did you know that I haven't long in to the app?!"
- 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992423371 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) That means nothing"
- 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992226845 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) That is unsourced"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Care Bears: Unlock the Magic."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
An edit war has been going on mainly between BaldiBasicsFan and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 over the episode listings and the sourcing of the episode listings. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 16:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- One of the disputing editors, TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 72 hours for failure to communicate. Will that allow this complaint to be closed? User:BaldiBasicsFan is reverting to insist the the show is continuing, while the point made by others is that nobody knows yet. Conceivably the producers themselves have not decided. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously, the source TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 got me is possibly WP:OR. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- DeadRat did provide a source, being the streaming platform, which would have been fine if there was a date on there. However, Baldi is correct because it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because they just assumed a date. The service, which I have does not explicitly state the date the episodes were released. Thus guessing a date is assuming which is SYNTH/OR. The episodes are definitely out, as I can view them right now; but the date known is TBA, until a reputable or official source is confirmed to be out. But since DeadRat is continued to revert Baldi's edits, and has been temporarily locked from editing for it, I think this case can be closed. If someone could email corporate and they responded back, then a proof of screenshot of that email response should be enough to justify the release date. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action, since one of the reverting parties is under a 72-hour block. Let us know if this war resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Kirbapara reported by User:5.43.72.55 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: Fuad Kasumović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kirbapara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- Special:Diff/992879786
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989007358 by 5.43.72.55 (talk) Not needed"
- 14:41, 7 December 2020 "Undid revision 992833756 by 5.43.72.55 (talk) Stop!"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Kirbapara's edit summary "Not needed" put to edit in which updated and cleaned up version (obiously improved and referenced) of the article is reverted to previous version of opposite characteristics – indicates vandalism. The user is noticed present to minorly edit (edit-just-to-edit) sensitive topic articles of Balkan dark history with fascism-like-oriented biased views. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/5.43.72.55's false claims are just not okay. I have edited the page up to the standards that it should look like, for example use the page of Jasmin Imamović who got reelected. He is putting another office for him as if the mayor of Zenica is two offices. --Kirbapara (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (CET)
I think no action is required now because user applied his/her described improvement without insisting on non-selective revert. 'Common language' found. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: I'm marking this report as withdrawn, though the whole thing is baffling. The two parties seem to have agreed on something, though I'm not sure what. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:103.102.116.58 reported by User:Prolix (Result: Blocked)
Page: Axis Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.102.116.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992898921 by Prolix (talk)"
- 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't remove other products which the bank provides"
- 08:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't remove other products which the bank provides"
- 04:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't products sections company do provides other products apart from banking"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RW 16)"
- 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"
- 18:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* STOP adding unsourced content */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Persistent edit warring and unsourced content addition by IP */ new section"
- 18:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Persistent edit warring and unsourced content addition by IP */ re"
Comments:
I have warned this user multiple times regarding the fact that adding any content requires sources. They've ignored messages, and refuse to change their ways. User is clearly aware that what they're doing is edit warring and are well aware of how to cite properly. I am not entirely without blame here, I may have lost track of my reverts in the heat of the moment, but I have made every attempt to resolve this issue. Prolix 💬 18:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: IP blocked 48 hours for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Buidhe reported by User:Khirurg (Result: No action)
Page: Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Alexikoua (talk): If so, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. Rummel's work is not RS for death estimates because it lacks a reputation for accuracy in that regard."
- 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 992889303 by Buidhe (talk): See https://www.google.com/books/edition/Extremely_Violent_Societies/48N-XbOltMEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rummel for one example. Anyway, the WP:ONUS is on you to show that Rummel's figures are worth mentioning"
- 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Greco-Turkish War */ Rummel's death estimates are not well regarded today, fail WP:RS"
- [8] is a revert of this [9]
- 23:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Genocide as a model for future crimes */ these statements are a coatrack, since they don't touch on the subject of this article". This is a revert of to this version [10].
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Bright line 3RR vio, keeps removing sourced material. Highly experienced user. Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The first edit is not a revert, it is a removal of content that is, as I stated, a coatrack and unrelated to the topic of the article. The second edit is not a revert either. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- While they were making this report, I posted on the talk page why Rummel is not reliable, so far no one has replied. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The first edit (#5) absolutely is a revert, because you removed the same material on November 27 [11]. Remember? Khirurg (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The second (#3)is also a revert because you removed material (reliably sourced material, at that) [12]. This material was added at some point. Thus removing is a reversion of the addition.
- Diff #4 is also a partial revert of this edit [13]. #4 and #3 were performed consecutively, but it's a clear 3RR vio.
- I replied at the talkpage [14]. Khirurg (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- While they were making this report, I posted on the talk page why Rummel is not reliable, so far no one has replied. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The second edit listed as a revert in the report, clearly is not a revert. The removal of content is not necessarily a revert. In addition to that, Buidhe is an established editor with a clear block log, so nobody should rush to block them. Solving the dispute on the talk page would be a better solution than wasting time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- No action. Please take this to the talk page, where a discussion appears to be already underway. Neutralitytalk 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:HumanBodyPiloter5 reported by User:Cinagroni (Result: )
Page: 2020 Turkish Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HumanBodyPiloter5 (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 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) to 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */ emphasising that team and constructor are not synonymous terms in Formula One"
- 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */"
- 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992936022 by Cinagroni (talk) deleting new information that was added to the article because they want to start an edit-war even when offered a compromise, splitting this information in some way is actually important to conveying it correctly"
- 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */ both sides of the sentence have equal weight"
- 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992932937 by Cinagroni (talk) acronym was already used earlier in the article, none of those semi-colons were out of place other than maybe the sentence about Hamilton overtaking Pérez"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* WP:3RR */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user has reverted four times, wholly or partially, in the last couple of hours. Their behaviour appears to be motivated by an ideological grudge against the concept of correct grammar: "There's no such thing as correct grammar", "linguistic prescriptivist ideology is an often bigoted and thoroughly discredited relic of the Victorian era and I will not tolerate it", "grammar isn't real, prescriptivists can cry about it.
As well as edit warring, they are being aggressive and hostile: referring to me as "the prescriptivist edit war starter" (in fact, they made the first revert) and "the anti-semi-colon person", and twice saying they would make a certain edit "if it makes you go away" ([15], [16]). I think this needs looking at. Cinagroni (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I think I changed the thing back to your edit. I got overly heated because I do actually genuinely feel a deep repulsion towards prescriptivist grammar and I should've stayed out of it. In all honesty I think the implication of prescriptivism brings out something of a trauma response in me due to dealing with certain obnoxious pedantic people in my personal life growing up and I will fully admit I acted inappropriately just now as a result. Can we please just stop this now and try to take away some sort of lesson? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:80.39.155.107 and User:2001:8003:3C41:DC00:7CF6:F698:C8A7:A022 reported by User:MSportWiki (Result: Semi)
Page: Sophia Flörsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.39.155.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2001:8003:3C41:DC00:7CF6:F698:C8A7:A022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:80.39.155.107, User talk:2001:8003:3C41:DC00:7CF6:F698:C8A7:A022
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
A clean-up has been attempted of the original as it was not completely correct, but still allowed under Wiki guidelines (current edit as of posting - this may appear slightly botched but I haven't gone through this process before). MSportWiki (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Vif12vf reported by User:5.43.72.55 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Independent Bloc (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- Special:Diff/992967632
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:01, 7 December 2020 "Reverted to revision 980328622 by Vif12vf (talk)"
- 00:14, 8 December 2020 "Reverted 1 edit by 5.43.72.55 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf"
# 02:21, 8 December 2020 "Reverted to revision 992950325 by Vif12vf (talk)"
- 02:24, 8 December 2020 "Reverted 1 edit by 5.43.72.55 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user reported makes arbitrary and non-selective reverts of my contribution, giving no rationale. Probably one more sockpuppet or false-purpose generated account. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Existing info lacking sources does in no way justify you adding more unsourced info! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sources are not needed for every statement. General true statements that are supported by logic only and that are useful contribution fitting in an article flow are welcome. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Filing IP blocked 24 hours. They have been warring to add an unsourced statement about the meaning of 'independent bloc'. WP:V provides that 'Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.' The statement was
- If considering the meaning of its name (Independent Bloc), this organized group of politicians can be regarded also or instead of 'real' political party – a political alliance or bloc (or coalition).
- This seems to be a personal reflection by the editor and nothing that he found in a source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:BunnyyHop reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: No violation)
Page: Execution van (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "Please, read the summary. You have reverted by edit for no valid reason. It has not been removed, it was moved to the "People's Republic of China" section and added an obsolete source template for being 18 years old. Removed non-WP:NPOV phrase and added hyperlink to Capital punishment in China to the first phrase of the article. If you have any objections, use the talk page."
- 00:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "The phrase removed is repeated on the "People's Republic of China" section, better tagged as an obsolete source due to its old [18 years old] age."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Apparently trying to WP:BOOMERANG; gaming WP:POV for WP:NOTCENSORED Firestar464 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The colleague reverted my edit because he thought I had removed the sentence, when in reality I did not, so I reverted the edit and included his suggestion. Since it's 18 years old, a phrase consisting of "predict that the execution rate in China will increase" should not be on the lead, so I moved it to the PRC section and added an obsolete template. As for "China has one of the highest execution rates in the world" I thought that was not related directly to the article, so I added a "is a method of capital punishment in China" to the first phrase of the lead, since it's much better than simply stating a random facts about it. All of this was reverted for ""So then we are in agreement stop removing sections detailing Chinese genocides [sic!]" [23] even the [citation needed] template was removed from "first used in 1997". My colleague stated the "removal" of a "section" when in reality there was no removal (I only moved it and added a obsolete template due to it being 18 years old), hence the revert, he could have simply not seen that part. BunnyyHop (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello I am the editor who is involved in the current dispute. I do agree BunnyyHop is making disruptive edits, and is not here to build an encyclopedia. BunnyyHop consistently removes sections of Marxist-Leninist atrocities, is a stated Marxist-Leninist, and has already had issues with biased editing both on Portuguese Wikipedia and on English Wikipeida. Although this at first sight might look minor with only 2 diffs over a period of less then 24 hours I think the content that was removed speaks volumes. BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP, or at least lives in Portugal, edits the article Portuguese Communist Party and stated that he himself was a member: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):BunnyyHop. I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. He seems here to only give a microphone and try to further the political cause Marxist-Leninism, trying to propagandize Wikipedia articles to be positive towards Marxist-Leninism or removing other sections on atrocities. Vallee01 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is an extensive dicussion in the talk page of Marxism-Leninism which I don't recommend anyone to dive into, but [here] is a good diff to contextualize what's written above. Also, there was no removal of content in Execution van, there was an extremely old phrase which includes "predict". The text "Human-rights groups predict that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" has been changed to "Amnesty International predicts that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" and an obsolete tag has been added with the text "This is a report from 18 years ago. Did the execution rate increase?". --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does this page have any 1RR sanctions? It appears as there have been only 2 reverts which do not constitute a report here under normal circumstances. Please move to the talk page if this indeed does not violate the 3RR rule. Thank you. Heart (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- No violation – 3RR was not broken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Ayaltimo reported by User:Magherbin (Result: )
Page: Ethiopian–Adal war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
This user is disruptive and edit wars on multiple pages, the user doesnt seem to understand how wikipedia works. Looking at this page history, the user broke the 3rr against an ip user but is now editwarring with me.[31] I had warned them a few weeks ago on another page which i included in the report. Can something be done here? Magherbin (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've followed the Wiki guidelines. I've requested for page protection [32] because the page has been vandalized by persistent sockpuppetry as you can see [33], [34], [35] and after these accounts kept getting banned. The sock attempted to vandalize the page by using his IP and was doing the same thing by adding unsourced additions then made an official account called Rogeman123 and even reverted one of the Administers edit [36]. I was simply protecting the page then we settled our dispute and I told him the source clearly mentions Somali instead of "Muslim" or "Adal" [37] and he complied [38] but Magherbin has personal issues with me and decided to start an edit war with me so he can catch me slipping and create his false narrative that I was causing disruptive editing when the evidence I presented from above shows you the complete opposite. He also recently started an edit war with the user Ragnimo just today. [39] He once had an edit war with me and Ragnimo on Aw Barkhaadle page [40]. He launched a fake investigation on two individuals which eventually proved me and the other user were unrelated. [41]
- This user simply has personal issues with me and is known for abusing multiple accounts in the past and was banned for it/ [42] Besides this matter has already been resolved and just reverted back to Magherbin's last edit and attempted using good faith before he reported me. [43] but this user doesn't know anything about good faith and just removes things he disagrees with without consulting us on the talk page. Ayaltimo (talk) 3:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I highly doubt you're misreading multiple sources on multiple pages, and since you removed my warning on your talk page [44] it seems you're well aware of your actions. Continuing to editwar on another page after WP:Hounding me by calling my edits vandalism [45] is not assuming good faith. This is what we call disruptive editing. The users issues go beyond the scope of this noticeboard but sticking to their edit warring habits, some sanctions need to be made here especially their clear violation of 3RR with the IP user. Magherbin (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing misleading and I'll explain why. You were sending edit warning messages on multiple users after engaging with them on multiple pages as you did with this user on the same day which says 24 of November [46] You are not only in dispute with me on that page but also with Ragnimo. We tried to conversate with you on discussion and made our points very clear while you barely made any attempt to challenge our sources but instead, you reverted our edits without consulting us. You are not supposed to engage in an edit war with multiple users and you've reverted the page multiple times in just under 24 hours against two users. [47] You were also engaging in an edit war with him again just today on here [48]. You're basically edit warring with multiple users on multiple pages and I find it ironic how you accuse me of disruptive editing. What I did was simply revert unexplained and unsourced additions produced by a sock puppet. When Reporter104 and his other sock called Parker8 got banned. He made a new sock called Lancer1295 and when that got banned. He began using his IP doing the same edit as his socks which is to add unsourced additions. I would revert his vandalism giving my reason [49] I wasn't the only one reverting the IP's vandalism so was the moderator called Materialscientist. [50] He then made a new account called Rogeman123 and even reverted one of the administers edits called Materialscientist. [51] This user is known for his persistent sock puppetry behaviour and I've requested a page protection [52] for the persistent sockpuppetry then you showed up engaging in an edit war with me all because we have a past and you can't seem to let go of your personal issue with me and that is not how Wikipedia works. We have to be a community and work together. Even after you did that I assumed good faith and reverted back to your last edit. [53] so the issue has been resolved between us but the commission should take action against you for engaging in edit wars with multiple users on multiple pages because that is a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like to point out that User:Ragnimo has appeared on the Ethiopian-Adal war article and removed sourced content, these two editor have followed me on multiple articles to edit war and joined multiple discussions on talk pages [54] [55]. Editwarring in tandem [56] [57]. User:TomStar81 has also expressed concerns of meatpuppetng and closing admin of the SPI concluded there is off wiki coordination going on which explains why these users appear on the same pages [58] Magherbin (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a sock account, no two ways about it, but I am unfortunately too close to the case to block. That being said, @Magherbin:, you may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Horn_of_Africa_disruption, because we are trying to get more firepower to bring to bare on these pages and the more testimony that its needed the better the odds are that it'll happen. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston It seems like the user Magherbin is engaging in another edit war with another user [59] and the other day he was engaging with him on here. [60] I only simply reverted the IP's user edit for adding unsourced addition. [61] I wasn't the only one even another moderator picked up and reverted his unexplained and unsourced additions. [62] Magherbin simply followed me on that page and decided to engage in an edit war with me because he has personal issues with me but I reverted back to his edit to assume good faith and not play his game. [63] My issue with him has been resolved. However, this user is engaging in an edit war with multiple users on multiple pages and actions must be taken against him for his disruptive editing.
- User:TomStar81 I don't know if you're trying to connect me with Ragnimo who you accused of being a sock puppet but the moderator has already cleared my name and confirmed I am unrelated to Ragnimo. [64] Matter of fact he reverted one of my edits because he shared a different opinion. [65] He even launched an investigation on me [66] but it turns the sock master called Shit233333334 who owned multiple socks all got banned instead. It's sad that you don't even know you're speaking to a sock master yourself. Magherbin got banned for abusing multiple accounts. [67] He is very likely a sock puppet belonging to Middayexpress when you review the analysis. [68] I will be launching an investigation on him since the evidence is very compelling. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Magherbin I was tagged onto this dicussion and above you linked to the Adal-ethiopian war article. I looked at it and the only thing i did was add a correct source to the page, that was missing it. Anyways leave me out of your disputes. You both can edit war eachother without including me into this. I don't have time.
Also don't understand how i can come back to you spamming my talk page for 1 single edit i made. For adding a source and then later you self-revert yourself? [69]. Both of you act like disruptive socks and troll accounts. Also i hope you know Wikipedia:No_talk_page_spamming and What you are doing is clearly WP:BAIT
TomStar81 Ayaltimo is most definitely a troll sock of Alaskalava. I have already launched a sockpuppet investigation against him and i am waiting for a CU to confirm things [70], a few disruptive troll socks i related back to Ayaltimo have been confirmed and banned/blocked.
You can see how Ayaltimo is actively trolling and his edits summaries make no sense [71]
FYI Magherbin has a history of continously edit warring with other editors[72] and has been blocked before for vandalizing the same pages. Click the links and see for yourself. Has a history of disruptive socking [73] , Both of them included sources that didn't state what was added to the page.[74] You can see it for yourself if you click one the sources added for them. He is actively engaging in the same behavior he is acussing others of. But thanks for the suggestion i will definitely weigh in on the Arbitration commite and mention Alaskalava/Ayaltimo and Magherbin/Lokiszm7 and others when i do. Add evidence. Ragnimo
- User:Ragnimo he called you the sock. The accounts that you have accused me of has already been banned and were not related to me because I have been the most active in reverting their vandalism. A "troll" account wouldn't safeguard pages from disruptive editors nor contribute to articles that need more development. My edit summary makes sense I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit because the source was highly disputed and I didn't want to get into trouble for safeguarding that page too much. I don't know where you got your ridiculous idea from by tying me with Alaska Lava but I am also building a case on Alaska Lava for potentially belonging to MustafaO. I've already launched an investigation on Magherbin proving he's very likely a sock belonging to Middayexpress. [75] Once the CU closes I expect an apology from you for the ridiculous accusations you've made. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
He can call me whatever , there is no evidence. When they finally run a CU check , it will show itself that you are Alaskalava. They only ran a CU check on those other accounts for a seperate reason and confirmed them with eachother and they are your other troll accounts, so all they need to do is a run a CU on you to confirm it.
Source was highly disputed? What are you even talking about? Whats the dispute in the source? You said one thing and the next you say another thing. You have zero consistency in your behavior, you are the disruptive person. You are not safeguarding anything. Cordless Larry even caught you disrupting the Somali article [76]. You added "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:". When you linked source was something else. You are clearly just mocking it. You're a jobless troll that follows people around and i can bet my money on that you are Alasklava doing this for retaliation. Trying to link Alaskalava to someone else doesn't make you not him and you can write these long incoherent ramblings it wont change it Ragnimo (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ragnimo stop with the personal attacks. You are not following the rules of Wikipedia. No Personal Attacks. Please refrain from personal attacks. I don't know how you get the idea of me being Alaska Lava but you also accused Hamza678yu and TBftf of being my sock but it turns out they belong to this sock master. [77] You were wrong about this one and you will be wrong about the Alaska Lava claim once the CU is complete then I expect a full apology from you because clearly, you don't know anything. As for Abdullahi Abdurahman's book. He was actually quoting from Lewis and Herbert when you check further readings. Go to page 65. [78] It wasn't disruptive editing but a clear misunderstanding. Stop asserting your false narrative as you did with the previous accusation against me. Magherbin proved on the talk page the source was a Wikipedia mirror copy. This source was disputed [79] so I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit. It's called using good faith and I was pretty consistent defending that page. Let the CU scan run and you'll see how you're wrong about me again. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Describing your behavior and then following up with evidence for it, is not personal attacks. See WP:AOBF I am still not wrong about you being a sock to Alaskalava and have provided evidence for it. Amanda didn't run a CU on you [80] and as she explains she was pointed to it for a seperate reason. If you are not Alaskalava why are you so defensive about it writing long ramblings?
There is no mention of Sade Mire on page 65[81] nor any qouting of her going on. Nor is there any mention of "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:" that you wrote down which is made up and completly nonsensical. All you see on page 65 is just the author summarizing the content of his book in his conclusion.
That other source you linked just now also had nothing to do with what you added on to the page.
Anyways argue with your chair. This is will be my last reply to you, i wont feed a troll Ragnimo (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- On page 65 it says in the further reading section. Lewis, Gerbert. "The origins of Galla and Somali." The Journal of African history, volume 7. That's where Abdurahman references his source when he mentioned the origins of Somalis. Clearly, you don't know how to check the source which makes you the bigger troll between us.
- When you said "You're a jobless troll that follows people around" that was clearly a Personal Attacks which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
- How can I be Alaska Lava when he believes the Somali clan's origin are Arabs. [82] and my sources suggest Somalis are native to Somalia. [83] Now the moderator has proved me and Alaska Lava are unrelated. [84]. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Krutapidla2 reported by User:Bengee123 (Result: Protected)
Page: Benjamin Gordon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krutapidla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [85]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]
}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman) [diff]
Comments:
Who is Krutapidla2, and why does he keep posting disruptive and slanderous edits in violation of Wikipedia policies? Multiple people have asked him to stop, including me. He has only redoubled his efforts, in what appears to be a personal vendetta. He has formed a single purpose account for purposes of attacking the aforementioned page. His sole contribution to Wikipedia has been a series of attacks. Please just look at his account history.
Unlike Krutapidla2, I am not a paid editor. I am not an editor or expert of any sort with respect to Wikipedia. I am, however, the subject of this page he has chosen to vandalize. I reached out to right a wrong and correct a slanderous posting on my page. What I received, instead, was a torrent of attacks from Krutapidla2.
Krutapidla2 appears to be a disgruntled paid editor himself who is accusing others.
Isn't his conduct a clear and continued breach of Wikipedia policies? Can someone help please? Thank you. Bengee123 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)/>
- Page protected – 3 days. User:Krutadpidla2, please get consensus on Talk for the material you keep trying to add to the article about the SEC issues. Consider asking at WP:BLPN what is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
User:89.247.252.171 reported by User:Boud (Result: Blocked)
Page: Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.247.252.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: version from before all the section blanking and reverting took place: Old revision of Mai_Kadra_massacre
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- section blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:19 10 Dec
- revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:32 10 Dec
- revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:40 10 Dec
- blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:25 10 Dec
- revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:31 10 Dec
- revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:46 10 Dec
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:89.247.252.171 is short enough to read quickly. These are actually warnings against section blanking, not edit warring, by three editors who are not me; plus my warning that the IP is now being discussed here at AN/3; and a personalised request to read about what edit wars are and why they are pointless. I'll put the current version here, just in case further edits confuse the issue.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Tariku Tagel is now "indefinitely blocked"; it's possible that the IP is the same person. In terms of substantive work to clarify editing conflicts, see my latest edit to the talk page in which I point to the sourced info that we have and the fact that this is not a Manichean (good vs bad) situation in terms of the info available, and point to what seems to be a possible overview.
Comments:
There are more blanking edits and reverts than listed above - see the page history. Boud (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
At least a temporary block until this IP user (if s/he is not Tariku Tagel) takes the time to understand elementary Wikipedia principles would seem necessary to me. Boud (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP user has started talking on the talk page of the article. It's probably worth waiting 24h or so to see if s/he has started to get the basic principles of Wikipedia editing. Everyone has the right to have a chance to learn. Boud (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: IP blocked two weeks. There is an ongoing dispute about responsibility for the massacre. But it is unlikely this can be addressed by deleting mainstream media reports from the article. Most likely the IP is User:Tariku Tagel evading their block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
User:GermanJackhammer reported by User:Gwenhope (Result: Blocked)
Page: David Dinkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GermanJackhammer (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 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Early career */Typos"
- 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */African American used incorrectly."
- 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "Dinkins wasn’t born in Africa therefore he was an American with African ancestry."
- 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "David dinkins was not from Africa. Therefore the term “ African American” is incorrect."
- Consecutive edits made from 09:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) to 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- 09:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Early career */Typos"
- 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Typos"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on David Dinkins."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Continual reversions of experienced editors reverting his unconstructive (and misinformed) edits regarding the use of the term "African-American" Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. This user is unlikely to succeed in replacing the term 'African-American' with something else all across Wikipedia. Next block is likely to be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
User:31.10.163.99 reported by User:Dormskirk (Result: Blocked)
Page: Unilever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.10.163.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [93]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]
Comments:
Three more reversions by a previously blocked editor who refuses to engage on the talk page. The issue appears to be about the unification of the structure of Unilever: it was unified to a single structure with a head office based in the UK on 30 November 2020. The IP keeps changing it back to how it was (UK/Dutch). I have no idea why the IP wants do do this because they will not engage on the talk page even though I opened a discussion there. Dormskirk (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Two weeks for long term edit warring. Last block was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Andrei-Williams-2005 reported by User:Alex B4 (Result: No action)
Page: John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan; Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury; Gisela Stuart
User being reported: Andrei-Williams-2005 (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:
- 20:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_B4#5_December
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrei-Williams-2005#December_2020
Comments:
I have tried to resolve things with this user on theirs and my own talk page but they continue to revert to their changes rather than discuss with me the policies I have cited such as MOS:CAPS, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:GOODFAITH. Alex (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello User:Alex B4. This report is hard to understand. The best case you have may be the edit history of Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury. But you would have a better argument if you showed you had discussed on that article's talk page exactly what you think is wrong. Edit warring is blockable but violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is not blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you EdJohnston, I can assure you that I am not a disruptive account, I am only trying to make articles clearer and nicer. AlexB4 is not showing any proof on why my edits should be deleted, the reason why I reverted his changes is because he is not specifically telling me what is wrong with my edits, he is only showing me some WP. Andrei-Williams-2005 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Alex B4 seems to be arguing that the large infobox that we see in the version of the article you created here is just too much coverage of Smith's shadow cabinet positions. (Click on all the 'Show' links to see everything). If a consensus was formed on this, Alex should be able to find it and link to it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Ah okay. Will do. Also sorry for the state of my report, it's the first time I've felt I've had to use the function. Many thanks. Alex (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action for now. Report again if the problem continues. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you should be considering. User:Alex B4, you need an exact description of the edits you consider to be wrong and you should be submitting them for discussion on article talk, so others can weigh in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
User:5.43.72.55 reported by User:Narky Blert (Result: Blocked)
Page: Kajang (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.43.72.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
An IP, reverted four times for the identical edit by three different editors within the last 24 hours. IP has justified their edit by referring to non-existent guidelines ("rules for disambiguation pages require no redirects between [[]] but direct link, template names have capitalized usage on English Wikipedia"; see #4 above). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vif12vf reported by User:5.43.72.55 (Result: Filer blocked) (8 December 2020) Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 6 months for edit warring. The IP user has been blocked as long as one month for disruption since November 1. See also their edit filter log. They don't seem to care what anyone else may think and they don't care about being blocked. They just remove all the notices and keep going. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- TY. For completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing (8 December 2020). Narky Blert (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
User:46.217.29.126 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Flags of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.217.29.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [110]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]
Comments:
Editor is also making an unreferenced change to Flag of Albania to try and prop up their edit, complete with inflammatory anti-Serbian edit summary.
- Blocked for 31 hours and warned of their need to discuss concerns and provide sources on article talk pages. (May possibly be editing under User:46.217.147.85, too.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
User:QRep2020 reported by User:cihwcihw (Result: Page protected)
Page: PlainSite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QRep2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=978463066&oldid=973787938
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993135825&oldid=992997637
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993135986&oldid=993135825
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993328899&oldid=993311399
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993430388&oldid=993365458
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QRep2020
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PlainSite#Neutral_Point_of_View
Comments:
Just to make it evident, the Talk page edit was made AFTER the unwarranted Plainsite edits were made repeatedly despite me implementing a revision with the updates that were sourced by reliable third party independent sources (i.e. the second link from above). QRep2020 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected – 48 hours by User:The Bushranger. See Talk:PlainSite#Full protection due to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
User:98.224.159.225 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Semi)
Page: 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.224.159.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [117]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119] (see comments)
Diff of AN3 notification: [120]
Comments:
Persistently adding content with little to no encyclopaedic value, with little to no sourcing, going back a week now (including 4RR within 24hrs). This is an SPA, that has only made these same repeat additions to this page, has not edited any other page, including talk pages. An earlier 'welcome' message posted to their tp gained no response, same for the 'soft 3rr' message posted to their tp. This user will not engage. - wolf 02:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week )
Page: Amanda Kloots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [121]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]
Comments:
Tenebrae included a primary source in addition to a secondary source to verify a claim. Later, a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present, which reinforces WP:RSPRIMARY, was generated per this discussion. After I removed the primary source, Tenebrae repeatedly referenced an irrelevant guideline (i.e., WP:PRIMARY) and told me that there was no consensus to remove the primary source. KyleJoantalk 16:06, 11 December 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. Page protected for a week. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)