EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 383: | Line 383: | ||
:::{{AN3|p}} – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. [[WP:DRN]] might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the [[WP:ARBEE]] sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
:::{{AN3|p}} – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. [[WP:DRN]] might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the [[WP:ARBEE]] sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Sweetkind5]] reported by [[User:Chipmunkdavis]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Sweetkind5]] reported by [[User:Chipmunkdavis]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe}} <br /> |
||
Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
:The editor keeps reverting attempts to return to the status quo ante while the issue is discussed on the Talk page (I have added the latest reversion to the list above) and accuses anyone who attempts to return to the last stable version of the article of being anti-Turkish bigots. He does not wish to discuss the subject matter (and has said so in the Talk page, as CMD pointed out) and does not appear to [[WP:Here|be here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 15:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
:The editor keeps reverting attempts to return to the status quo ante while the issue is discussed on the Talk page (I have added the latest reversion to the list above) and accuses anyone who attempts to return to the last stable version of the article of being anti-Turkish bigots. He does not wish to discuss the subject matter (and has said so in the Talk page, as CMD pointed out) and does not appear to [[WP:Here|be here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 15:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::More appropriately, the user is tried to fool us more times, since invented various fake reasons to revert, first he stated on the edit log we should discuss on the talk page when already a discussion was opened which he ignored then, another time he claimed he is restoring the ''original content'', which was not the status quo ante version, but the version he pushed. The status quo version is what I reset (and equals with the last stable version as well). The user already breached 3RR earlier, however just because of Christmas I did not report him immediately, but contrary the warnings and discussions, the disruptive editing continued.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)) |
::More appropriately, the user is tried to fool us more times, since invented various fake reasons to revert, first he stated on the edit log we should discuss on the talk page when already a discussion was opened which he ignored then, another time he claimed he is restoring the ''original content'', which was not the status quo ante version, but the version he pushed. The status quo version is what I reset (and equals with the last stable version as well). The user already breached 3RR earlier, however just because of Christmas I did not report him immediately, but contrary the warnings and discussions, the disruptive editing continued.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)) |
||
:{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Wicked-pedia Editor]] reported by [[User:Ashleyyoursmile]] (Result: Blocked 3 days) == |
== [[User:Wicked-pedia Editor]] reported by [[User:Ashleyyoursmile]] (Result: Blocked 3 days) == |
Revision as of 18:17, 28 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:TranscendentMe reported by User:Normchou (Result: Page protected)
Page: Australia–China relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TranscendentMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts: Consecutive edits made from 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ balanced contents fromt the same source."
- 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ completed response from China side."
- 20:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ if contents of one side's statement are included, so should be the other."
Consecutive edits made from 19:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC) to 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- 19:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ completed contents from the same source."
- 19:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995950893 by Normchou (talk) you seems think this section is only about Australia, not China. But this is Australia-China relationship page. The denouement including China is China's response to Australia. Of course it should be included."
- 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ in original source, China response as a result of Five Eyes statement, yet in this section it appears to be China attached first. Changed the statement to fit the description of original source."
Consecutive edits made from 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) to 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ add background from original and new reference."
- 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ completed description from the same source."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Australia–China relations."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */ new section"
- 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Morrison Government */"
Comments:
This user's recent editing [2] focuses only on three articles: Australia–China relations, Zhao Lijian, and Internet censorship in China. Keeps adding materials that are either WP:COPYPASTE or WP:UNSOURCED. Keeps reverting others' edits and ignores talk page suggestions before adding/removing materials. Looks like it's their second time engaging in this type of behavior within a week [3]. Normchou 💬 20:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@User:Normchou I didn't revert your editing three times in a day. Instead, I'm completing contents in WP to avoid one-sided narrative. All my completion comes Most of the sections I completed come from the same source already existed, yet they original ones are referred with bias or unbalanced. I have discussed your concern on the talk page of Australia–China relations, you are abusing reporting here and suppressing different opinionsTranscendentMe (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) edited22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @TranscendentMe: I asked you to discuss at 19:27 [4] and at 19:43 [5]. Your revert started at 19:32 and you kept adding/removing stuff at 20:06, 20:14, and 20:35. Only after that, at 20:36, you "discussed" on the talk page. Normchou 💬 20:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Normchou: I don't have omniscience ability. I was working on the material before I noticed your comments on the talk page. And I responded to you.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm more concerned by edits on Zhao Lijian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TranscendentMe, edit warring is not just 3RR violations. You clearly are edit warring on these pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Further, statements like "
All or none: BBC, VOA, CCTV should be treated equally. If you agree with that, I will immediately remove all references from all of them
" are not remotely helpful. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, place to make WP:POINTs, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
If current contents on the pages don't omit parts if not all necessary background, I don't need to do so. These pages have been abused with one-sided stories and lack balanced views even that has been included in the same reference, I seriously suspect this will misleading the public. And users like User:Normchou shouldn't abuse the report just because the reference I listed they don't like.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Transcendent: My two reverts are here: [6] [7]. The first revert removed the Newsweek source because what you added, "on behalf of 45 countries in support of China's counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang", is nowhere to be found in this article. The only thing I can find that is barely relevant is "Cuba, speaking for 45 signatories". The second revert did not do anything to the RSes. I merely deleted the WP:OR and WP:UNDUE materials and then asked you to discuss. Normchou 💬 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Normchou: that is a mistake, the correct reference has been added [8]. You deleted my section [9] without any explanation, and I have told you I cannot be everywhere you are immediately.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- You added it at 21:43, more than 2 hours after I first asked you to discuss at 19:18 [10]. And you did a number of things without any discussion in between. Normchou 💬 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have told you that is a mistake, I just noticed and added the correct reference. And I have told you I cannot be everywhere at the same time, maybe you can. You didn't give me enough time to response because I was working on the material. Not everybody works like you. TranscendentMe (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- You added it at 21:43, more than 2 hours after I first asked you to discuss at 19:18 [10]. And you did a number of things without any discussion in between. Normchou 💬 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Normchou: that is a mistake, the correct reference has been added [8]. You deleted my section [9] without any explanation, and I have told you I cannot be everywhere you are immediately.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Transcendent: Also, in my first revert, I removed the sentence "Immediately afterward, the envoy for Pakistan stood up and read out a statement signed by 55 countries, including China, denouncing any use of the situation in Hong Kong as an excuse for interference in China’s internal affairs" because it is a direct WP:COPYPASTE from the source. You then added it right back [11] without even listening to what I said. Normchou 💬 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Normchou: I have answered you on the talk page that I have rephrased it.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- You "answered" only AFTER you have done everything you felt you "must do". Normchou 💬 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I finish things on my hands before I move to the next, including your comments on the talk page. Then I did respond to you in between. You are demanding me to switch to whatever you added immediately. That is not possible.TranscendentMe (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- You "answered" only AFTER you have done everything you felt you "must do". Normchou 💬 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Normchou: I have answered you on the talk page that I have rephrased it.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@TranscendentMe: Once I've replied, do NOT change your original comment, as you did here [12], without indicating you've made a change WP:TALK#REPLIED. It would make my replies look irrelevant. Normchou 💬 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm clarifying my words, it's irrelevant to you.TranscendentMe (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and tone shown by Normchou is frankly odious and doesn't seem like what Wikipedia is all about. I'd be worried if such actions go unchecked, as it may inspire other users to behave similarly as well. A WP:BOOMERANG might come in handy. 176.222.34.116 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days. Given how large these changes are I'd expect to see more discussion on the talk page. The community is unlikely to put up with a long term war on this article, so please get busy with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Noelcubit reported by User:Vyaiskaya (Result: No violation)
Page: Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noelcubit (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] general following around all of my edits to revert them. Calling me a bot, calling out "my mom" telling me my work is "useless" refusing dialogue, petty harassment and vandalism.
- [diff] there may be more edits, however given tne number of pages Id had edits on that were vandalised, Im not sure I can keep track.
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Result: No violation. It takes four reverts within 24 hours to break WP:3RR. Turning our attention to the filer, User:Vyaiskaya seems to be making rapid edits on a number of Russia-related articles and should be mindful of the need to get consensus. The comment by User:Noelcubit about reverting a bot was hopefully a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Wild.Reputation reported by User:Joey Camelaroche (Result: Blocked)
Page: Power Up (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wild.Reputation (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: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None
Comments:Stop it. He silently returns his changes. Previously warned.--Joey Camelaroche (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours. It looks like this editor was in a prior edit war at McCartney III around 15 December. Calling other editors deaf, dumb and blind is not reassuring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:68.65.241.236 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page: Arianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.65.241.236 (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 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) to 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Still incorrect. Here's another source, again from a Google search: https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
- 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
- 22:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed incorrect claim. Simple Google search reveals it is unitarian not binitarian: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC) to 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- 21:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "This is incorrect as not found in the sources cited yet again. Arianism is neither Trinitarian nor binitarian as cited at the top of the paragraph. This change is accurate and will stand."
- 21:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "According to sources cited"
- 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed incorrect claim"
- 16:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Two things: according to all sources of Arianism used and all modern examples, The Son is not considered to be God the Son, claiming that contradicts the first statement used here with use of 'nontrinitarian'. The first statement is true, second is false. Secondly, all used sources identify Arianism as an ancient Christian heresy, further evidenced by the dates and use of 'nontrinitarian'. Accurate use of sources and transparency was needed."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arianism."
- 22:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Subtle vandalism on Jesse James Keitel."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "/* I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks the definition is very confusing. Or is it incomplete or what is Arius accused of? */ binitarian"
Comments:
Generally speaking 68.65.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) is a transphobic edit warrior. They think they are smarter than Bart Ehrman. Their interests remind me of someone who got a Foundation Ban , Til Eulenspiegel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Til Eulenspiegel was ferociously against homosexuals, so I guess that translates to transphobia, also. Misgendering transsexuals and non-binary people seems to be a hobby for alt-right trolls and for Christian fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Special:Contributions/68.65.0.0/16 is blocked 1 month. I agree with you about the resemblance to User:Til Eulenspiegel but had not heard before about their issues with marking genders for trans people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Nnnou2 reported by User:Nevermore27 (Result: Page protected)
Page: List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nnnou2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:47.142.132.142 reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Medal of Honor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.142.132.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
On Medal of Honor
- [24]
- [25]
- [26] - (added after this report was filed. Still refuses to engage on tp. This is the 7th edit they have made to the page in last 24hrs)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Diff of 3RRNB notice: [29]
Comments:
User has not engaged on their talk page or the article talk page, despite numerous requests and being reverted by two users (myself and Thewolfchild (talk · contribs)). Previous attempts to engage regarding the Air Force Cross (United States) page seem to indicate they will not engage outside the article main space (I realized that one was becoming an edit war, rather than working constructively through iterative edits as I initially thought, on 22 December, after 23 December I ceased reverting on to attempt to diffuse the situation and give them time to engage on their user talk page, where I had unsuccessfully reached out to them). Garuda28 (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Concur with this report. IP user will post lengthy confrontational edit summaries, but refuses to engage on talk page, despite numerous attempts. This user is highly likely to continue edit warring and disrupting pages. - wolf 05:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours for disruptive editing. The IP user has triggered the edit filter 24 times but has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Sarmiento 007 reported by User:Shaidar cuebiyar (Result: Blocked)
Page: Tones and I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sarmiento 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33], [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35], [36], [37]
Comments:
The material being added appears to violate WP:BLP and policy requires its removal.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC) The above user has shifted tack and stopped adding all of the objectionable content. They have editorialised the article with commentary on its content showing bias towards their preferred point of view. A discussion has been started by that editor at Talk:Tones_and_I#Her_age. They still appear to show no desire to heed BLP with their opening comment. In that section I explain why I have gone to this Admin's noticeboard. I also explained why their more recent edits are also problematic. I am awaiting their response on the Tones and I talkpage but I have left another of their commentaries in the article, for now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Another user, Shipmaster, removed the editorial content. Sarmiento 007 ignored my explanation about why their edits were being removed and added the birth year, which wss supported by two sources with user-generated content. I removed that content and once again asked the user to talk about their problems first. I need help here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – User:Sarmiento 007 is blocked 48 hours. Note that discogs.com is not a reliable source for any questions of fact. See its entry in WP:RSP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Vyaiskaya reported by User:Danloud (Result:some pages protected)
Page:
Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
North Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
White Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Russian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Siberia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Westernization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Black Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vyaiskaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Russia:
Comments:
User has simultaneously reverted stable versions of multiple articles, added unsourced, unconstructive content, broke the WP:3RR rule, removed my warning, ignored other users' warnings too, and rather gave me an explanation on why he's right. Reverted my improvements on the articles of Russia and the Black Sea, and has been reverted, multiple times, by not only me, but various other users, but is still reverting and adding vague edits. Danloud (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The user only made a couple of edits in the last two days, and I protected three pages, where I could detect ongoing edit-warring. Generally, this is massive edit-warring occurring across many articles, and @Vyaiskaya, Danloud, Noelcubit, DxRxXxZ, and Archives908: and possibly some other users I have not spotted deserve a school of trouts here. Vyaiskaya and DxRxXxZ are new users, and what they are trying to introduce to the articles is certainly not vandalism. It might be inappropriate for other reasons, but it is certainly not vandalism. They are also the only ones who attempted to discuss anything at talk pages. All parties left at other party's pages indiscriminate template warnings, which some others replicated, and sometimes left edit summaries which are not appropriate. Those of you who have more experience should, instead of tag-teaming, try to explain our younger colleagues (possibly at their talk pages) what is wrong with their edits, in the way they can understand it. On the other hand, the younger users must read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and ultimately WP:RGW. And everybody needs to stop edit-warring. Having said this, if Vyaiskaya continues edit-warring a block would become inevitable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have been drawn an attention to this request and closed it not noticing it was already in the archive. Still I think it is important for the parties to know about my opinion (as patrolling admin) on the situation.@Vyaiskaya, Danloud, Noelcubit, DxRxXxZ, and Archives908:--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @RenatUK:--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:58.6.237.199 reported by User:CR4ZE (Result: Blocked)
Page: Arkham Asylum – Shock Therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.6.237.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/996398622
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/996359081/996361318
- Special:Diff/996379361/996384155
- Special:Diff/996387140/996396425
- Special:Diff/996398622/996401136
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:58.6.237.199
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/956654364/996387539
Comments:
Despite several warnings, user has been adding unsourced information about the closure of a theme park attraction several times. No announcement has been made about this closure and the status quo needs to be retained until that happens. — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Haydar Pamuk reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result:Blocked)
Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haydar Pamuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Review my three sources and comments in talk concerning this entry Undid revision 996408734 by Le Petit Chat (talk)"
- 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Of course truth matters. You are engaging in revisionism and selective history: no one should be allowed to rewrite history. This is a citation from an academic from Oxford and not from a state-sponsored Azeri source such as yours. Undid revision 996402722 by Solavirum (talk)"
- 11:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "But this is not an Azeri, nor Armenian, Wikipedia page. It is Wikipedia. In Armenia, it is labelled very differently. Your claim is one-sided and spurious this is why non-partisan, non-state sources like the Washington Post work better. Please stop undoing and undermining the accuracy of non-biased historic information Undid revision 996398961 by Solavirum (talk)"
- 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Please do not delete well sourced history about Shusha. You include historic demographic data for Azeris prior to the recent war. For balance, you also need to include data for Armenians in the town prior to the massacre. Undid revision 996392607 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
- 07:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996309963 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Dear Ymblanter, many thanks for your ongoing efforts on this noticeboard. I wonder whether you were aware that CuriousGolden notified Haydar Pamuk about 3RR violation only at 14:40, 26 December 2020 - at the same time when reporting him here at 14:40, 26 December 2020 (does not look like Haydar Pamuk had a chance to reflect on his actions before the block), while making 4 reverts in 24 hours himself - please see my report below. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The whole talk page of Haydar Pamuk is full of warnings and in fact does not contain anything else. For a user with 14 edits this is not a good Wikipedia start, and they should be happy that they were only blocked for 31 hours. I often block such users indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ymblanter. While not arguing that there are warnings on his page (although 4 out 5 being by a single user - himself actively reverting) , the 3RR violation warning was given at the same time as reporting him on noticeboard per 3RR, which, to a user with only 14 edits, might not be the kindest approach - he simply might not have been aware of the 3RR, he did not get a warning about 3RR rule before being reported and hence he might not have had a chance to familiarize himself with 3RR and reflect on his activity violating it. He might have made those edits in good faith, as he volunteered to GA review the article. What do you think? Regards Armatura (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I already mentioned, I think that the user is not here to built an encyclopedia and must feel happy that tomorrow they can continue editing. Probably not for long though unless they radically change their attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ymblanter. While not arguing that there are warnings on his page (although 4 out 5 being by a single user - himself actively reverting) , the 3RR violation warning was given at the same time as reporting him on noticeboard per 3RR, which, to a user with only 14 edits, might not be the kindest approach - he simply might not have been aware of the 3RR, he did not get a warning about 3RR rule before being reported and hence he might not have had a chance to familiarize himself with 3RR and reflect on his activity violating it. He might have made those edits in good faith, as he volunteered to GA review the article. What do you think? Regards Armatura (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The whole talk page of Haydar Pamuk is full of warnings and in fact does not contain anything else. For a user with 14 edits this is not a good Wikipedia start, and they should be happy that they were only blocked for 31 hours. I often block such users indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Ymblanter, many thanks for your ongoing efforts on this noticeboard. I wonder whether you were aware that CuriousGolden notified Haydar Pamuk about 3RR violation only at 14:40, 26 December 2020 - at the same time when reporting him here at 14:40, 26 December 2020 (does not look like Haydar Pamuk had a chance to reflect on his actions before the block), while making 4 reverts in 24 hours himself - please see my report below. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura (Result: )
Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Looks like 4 reverts over 24 hours period. No signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shusha_(2020) - GA review . The user is well aware of the 3RR rule as they were previously sanctioned by 2 week abstinence from editing Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and at that point they claimed that they were unaware of the rule but would follow it from now now. Notified about this discussion on personal talk page and on 3RR violation on article talk page. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say that this diff and this diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception in WP:3RR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Just one of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another user Sataralynd to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 NKR-connected articles as reported by another user Գարիկ Ավագյան. This is despite being alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism"). Armatura (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Armatura, did you look carefully at the fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:
- There Syrian Jihadists participating in the battle on the Azerbaijani side sent there with weapons after they crossed on foot into Turkish borders. They were sent by Erdogan, where he plotted a plan to settle syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh. It is now a confirmed fact. This article left out everything about the Syrian Jihadists and its a shame they are hiding the fact that Armenia was fight a war against terrorists whom said themselves that the Azerbaijanis stayed at the lines getting drunk while they sent the mercenaries forward to die. If this truth is removed than this article is nothing more than a make believe trophy because all shit floats to the surface one day..
- Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source? EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics) , but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Βατο reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)
Page: Apollonia (Illyria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Βατο (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: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Comments:
Clear cut 3RR violation. Four reverts in the space of 10 hours. He and his friends will WP:FILIBUSTER this report to turn into tl;dr. But the diffs speak for themselves. The article falls within the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions area. The reverts are particularly disruptive, as they not only remove sourced material, but also misrepresent sources (e.g. here [62] he removes a source (Stocker) and adds a source (Cabanes) that does not support the "joint trading settlement" claim, as explained here [63]). He has received plenty of edit-warring warnings in the recent past [64] [65]. Didn't seem to have done any good. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is not 3rr violation: here I removed
{{qn}}
tags because the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article; here I fixed a source using the Harv-style reference and I added further sources into the lede. In those two edits, the article's content was not changed. – Βατο (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the
{{qn}}
tags was not a revert to one of my preferred versions. – Βατο (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically
A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material
. In all 4 diffs, you reversed the actions of other editors and returned the article to a previous state. It doesn't matter if you don't consider them reverts. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you say it's not your "preferred version". It's still a revert. This is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A revert of what? – Βατο (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically
- With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the
- Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment by uninvolved editor. As far as I can see, there is no 3RR breach. In any case, nobody should rush to block Bato who is an established editor with clear block and AE logs. He even did not get warned for edit warring. Instead, I would like to have an admin keep an eye on the article, as it is having many edits and some reverts by several editors. As for the "friends" comment made by the filer, well he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. I suggest everyone focus on improving content rather than on accusations and redundant disagreements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears
he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors
. Khirurg (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bato: It's really sad you pretend that the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article. In fact they are not, to name a few tags you removed: Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97. I assume you need to rephrase your defence in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears
- Response to Khirurg.There you were sanctioned as part of a "travelling circus" (an admin's words), not to mention that in the other AE cases you have in your log you were sanctioned together with two other disruptive editors, I pakapshem and ZjarriRrethues. This clarification was needed aa you said you expected "friends" of Bato to come here. I did not come here as a "friend". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are no quotes about those reference (Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97... a quick search can confirm this) even in the article's body. @Bato: The placing of a qn tag is a polite way to say that something is needed. But you responded with instant reverts. That's a non-constructive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Is @Khirurg: seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and
particularly disruptive
the fact that Bato changedApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
[68]? The report is also invalid because no warning was ever sent to Bato even about the above "revert". This is the very definition of WP:GAMING 3RR. Khirurg has a history of this. Here's a similar failed report against another editor with whom he was in a dispute [69] for "maxing out 3RR"; he likewise supports another report against an editor he had a dispute with[70]. Noticeboards shouldn't be instrumentalized to win disputes. Now, Khirurg and Alexikoua whose report he recently supported have a total of 4 reverts and Khirurg is attacking other editors even when fixing minor edits ("fixed incompetent editing"). - Alexikoua was recently reported for a crystal clear violation of 3RR which nobody disputed [71]. Khirurg then argued that Alexikoua shouldn't be blocked because of "tagteaming" (not withstanding the fact that constantly they and Alexikoua find themselves on the same side of every dispute I've observed, which shows a much more consistent pattern than the collection of editors he's ever made this claim against). One can see highly representative behavior on that thread: although Khirurg claims the most minor of edits are sanctionable when put forward by editors he disagrees with, when an editor he constantly finds himself on the same side of the aisle is reported for obvious edit-warring, Khirurg barrages the filing editor and others with personal attacks and bewildering claims that they are "motivated by a desire for revenge".
- If we as a community are serious about fixing the problems that are glaringly evident here, the obvious fix is at the very least a reprimand for Khirurg to stop using reports in this manner. But at the very least, the WP:GAMING of noticeboards should stop.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Is @Khirurg: seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and
- As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past [72] [73], to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here [74]. Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring (
Warn the user if you have not already done so.
). Now, I think that you didn't warn Bato because there was nothing to warn him about. Despite your claims that he has been "edit-warring like mad" you are asking from the community to count as aparticularly disruptive
revert an edit by Bato which changedApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
[75]. It really highlights the instrumentalization of the report function and the very bad use of community discussions. Editors are reported in order to stop an active disruption. Such minor edits are neither disruptive or worthy of any discussion at ANI. You can't ask for anyone to be blocked or even warned about something like that. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring (
- It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past [72] [73], to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here [74]. Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC
- There was no 3RR violation and the change of
Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
is not aparticularly disruptive
edit/revert in any way, shape or form. I don't think that anyone should be blocked about anything if there is no disruption. I'm not even fond of blocks per se. And I am of the opinion that no editor should be dragged through a report which hypes minor edits as something which they're not. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked [76]? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine [77]. The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The one who is guilty of source misuse is Βατο, who in one of the reverts above used a source to make a claim not backed by the source. And it doesn't matter if "you are not fond of blocks". You are not an admin around here. Why are you trying to sound like one? Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Source misuse with original research interpretation is Alexikoua's pattern, not mine. The false statement
misrepresented another (Cabanes)
highlights your unconstructive pattern in Wikipedia, you haven't even checked the sources. Kyle et al. and McIlvaine et al. are not commenting on Hammond's suggestions, they used them along with Cabanes' and other scholars' proposals to make their own conclusions, it can be easily seen if you read the sources, but for you it is better to WP:CHERRYPICK sources and to add only what you like, ignoring other scholars' considerations. In that specific edit I added further quotes from the sources because Alexikoua used them incorrectly as considering the information supported only by Hammond, when actually it was not the case. Anyway, that is just one of the edits, and it is content dispute that should be discussed in the article's talk page, not here. Returning to this discussion, there is not 3rr violation, one of the presumed reverts was actually a source fix with the use of Harv-style reference. Also I fail to see a warning in my talk page, which clearly shows that there was not edit war. – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed
Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
. As we're getting close to a day after the supposed "disruptive editing" nothing has happened in terms of editing. If there was disruptive editing which required for anyone to be blocked, where is the continued disruption? The fact that you're still trying to put forward a narrative that requires for Bato to be blocked even though nothing has actually happened in my book looks like instrumentalization of the report in order to score points against another editor. Such use of community noticeboards lowers the quality of the project and makes collaboration very difficult.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed
- You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked [76]? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine [77]. The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was no 3RR violation and the change of
- Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC
- But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of
Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
toApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
, because even that was too much for him. I made the minor edit, and he reverted it instantly, with the edit summary "not an improvement". What kind of behavior is that? It's clear WP:OWN. Of course he has been lying low since I filed the report. And we both know what will happen if the report is closed as no action: He will immediately resume WP:OWN edit warring. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of
- Page protected – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. WP:DRN might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)
Page: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sweetkind5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [78]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]
Comments:
Sweetkind5's latest talk page contributions include "I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion...don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits". CMD (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The editor keeps reverting attempts to return to the status quo ante while the issue is discussed on the Talk page (I have added the latest reversion to the list above) and accuses anyone who attempts to return to the last stable version of the article of being anti-Turkish bigots. He does not wish to discuss the subject matter (and has said so in the Talk page, as CMD pointed out) and does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- More appropriately, the user is tried to fool us more times, since invented various fake reasons to revert, first he stated on the edit log we should discuss on the talk page when already a discussion was opened which he ignored then, another time he claimed he is restoring the original content, which was not the status quo ante version, but the version he pushed. The status quo version is what I reset (and equals with the last stable version as well). The user already breached 3RR earlier, however just because of Christmas I did not report him immediately, but contrary the warnings and discussions, the disruptive editing continued.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC))
- Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Wicked-pedia Editor reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page: List of awards and nominations received by GFriend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wicked-pedia Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 14:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 14:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */Calm down your asses."
- 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 14:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 13:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 13:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
- 09:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by GFriend."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 10:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
- 12:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply"
Comments:
Hello admins, the editor has been trying to add non-notable awards to the table of awards received by GFriend. They have been warned twice about edit warring, reverted by three different editors: Paper9oll, EN-Jungwon, and myself. I even opened a talk page discussion [91] to discuss and resolve the changes, to which they haven't responded and have continued to behave in the same manner. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User79.52.10.235 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page: List of ongoing armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.52.10.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [92]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] plus additional clarification the rule applies to Troubles related content in other articles here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] (at related talk page, referred to discussion in edit summaries)
Comments:
Edits are subject to a 1RR restriction WP:TROUBLES (my revert of the IP are exempt from 1RR). On both reverts they have restored the unreferenced claim three gangland feuds are part of the Dissident Irish republican campaign, the first edit also reverts the 2019 casualties total from 1 back to 3, and the second edit also reverts to add back the incorrect total of 184 deaths which I have explained is incorrect at their talk page, and repeatedly referred them to the explanation at Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign#Casualties. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Related report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona, due to use of D10s Maradona (talk · contribs) sockpuppet to continue edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – One month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona for details. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User:CSOlson3389 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result:blocked)
Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CSOlson3389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessionally subjective material"
- 19:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional subjective material"
- 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional subjective content"
- 17:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessionally subjective material intended to alter peoples’s perceptions"
- 03:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional, subjective material/statements"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Soul (2020 film)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, the page has been long-term protectedYmblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User: Shinyedit reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page protected)
Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shinyedit (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]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- No violation, reverts were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User: Tbhotch reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page protected)
Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tbhotch (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]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- No violation, Tbhotch made only two reverts, and they were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Doggy54321 reported by User:GngZack (Result: )
Page: Positions (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Doggy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [97]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
User has reverted the same article upwards of 4 times in the span of 24 hours despite the summaries of the edits explaining why they were necessary to remove WP:SYNTH material. A talk couldn't be initiated in the Talk Page because the page was changed to semi-protected status soon after the 4th reversion. GngZack (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Um...the third and fourth reverts were cleaning up vandalism. The page was semi-protected to prevent vandalism (I was out for a walk as this was all happening), and after I came back, I saw the page was protected because of vandalism. I went to check the edit history to see if there was any vandalism needing to be cleaned up (there was), so that is what the third/fourth reverts are for. Please keep in mind that those two reverts are exempt to 3RR per WP:EW#EX4. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @GngZack: you can open a talk discussion on the talk page, as it is not semi-protected. Talk pages usually are never protected. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)