Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 402: | Line 402: | ||
*Unless I am missing something I am only seeing 3 reverts, so not a 3RR violation. You seem to list a bold edit as a revert above for some reason with you two tied at 3 reverts each. Though I will agree it all looks fishy. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
*Unless I am missing something I am only seeing 3 reverts, so not a 3RR violation. You seem to list a bold edit as a revert above for some reason with you two tied at 3 reverts each. Though I will agree it all looks fishy. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
::*The reviewing admin should note that PakcMecEng is like a carrion crow in regard to me, sticking his nose into my business whenever and wherever possible. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I fixed some really basic grammar errors. I described what I was doing in the edit summaries. I did not expect thanks, but I certainly did not expect to be attacked in this way. This aggressive and thoroughly unpleasant user has not made any coherent case for undoing my edits. Obviously, there is no coherent case for restoring ungrammatical text. They have claimed that I need to establish a consensus for correct grammar, pestered me repeatedly on my talk page, and now report me here. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous reaction to someone fixing errors in an article. [[User:Sergow|Sergow]] ([[User talk:Sergow|talk]]) 00:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
:I fixed some really basic grammar errors. I described what I was doing in the edit summaries. I did not expect thanks, but I certainly did not expect to be attacked in this way. This aggressive and thoroughly unpleasant user has not made any coherent case for undoing my edits. Obviously, there is no coherent case for restoring ungrammatical text. They have claimed that I need to establish a consensus for correct grammar, pestered me repeatedly on my talk page, and now report me here. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous reaction to someone fixing errors in an article. [[User:Sergow|Sergow]] ([[User talk:Sergow|talk]]) 00:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
::I also note that items 1 and 3 on the list here are not reverts. To be attacked and misrepresented in this way for fixing grammar errors really is quite disgusting. [[User:Sergow|Sergow]] ([[User talk:Sergow|talk]]) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
::I also note that items 1 and 3 on the list here are not reverts. To be attacked and misrepresented in this way for fixing grammar errors really is quite disgusting. [[User:Sergow|Sergow]] ([[User talk:Sergow|talk]]) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:43, 3 May 2021
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:31.166.38.73 reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: Blocks, Semi)
Page: Rouran Khaganate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Proto-Mongols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Donghu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 31.167.235.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 169.148.68.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Osamaorf (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: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
False information and WP:OR is added from this IP 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs). The user writes about the Turkic origins of the Donghu referring to these sources (Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity", Early China, p. 20; Wei Shou . Book of Wei. Vol. 1; Tseng, Chin Yin (2012). The Making of the Tuoba Northern Wei: Constructing Material Cultural Expressions in the Northern Wei Pingcheng Period (398-494 CE) (PhD). University of Oxford. P . 1 .; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 , 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 , 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 , 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 , 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"). But the sources say about the connection of the Rourans with the Donghu and the Xiongnu, not with the Turkic peoples. Previously, the user was engaged in similar activities in the article Tatar confederation. As a result, the article was protected, and the user was blocked. Previously he edited from here: 169.148.68.144 (talk · contribs), 31.167.235.14 (talk · contribs), Osamaorf (talk · contribs). Request to protect articles (Rouran Khaganate, Proto-Mongols, Donghu people), as well as take action against the user 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs).
- Gross violation of WP: CIVIL rules: diff. I ask the administrators to remind the user about the inadmissibility of such edits, and also to take appropriate measures against the user Osamaorf (talk · contribs).--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've added some lines to the header and am notifying Osamaorf (talk · contribs) of this complaint. If one person is conducting an edit war with multiple IPs (all located in Jiddah) we might call that sockpuppetry. User:Osamaorf has previously been blocked for the same thing so this time around an indef block seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Osamaorf indef blocked for the continued sockpuppetry, three IPs blocked a month each, three articles semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Locke Cole reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: No violation)
Page: Memory hierarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not applicable
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on other talk page: [11]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [12]
Comments:
As noted in the discussions attempted with Locke Cole the use of IEC prefixes is allowed in cases where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary. The article in question has for a long time used IEC prefixes to resolve the ambiguity in the two meanings of binary prefixes (e.g. GB meaning either 1 billion or 1,073,741,824). Locke Cole made his changes and was asked to discuss but instead he reverted. Another editor joined the discussion supporting the original usage but Locke Cole reverted nonetheless. so far no one has supported his POV. Clearly the article should remain in its original version (with minor corrections) while editors discuss the changes if any. Locke Cole should be blocked from further edits of the article.
Thanks for reviewing this issue. Tom94022 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is longstanding consensus at WP:COMPUNITS that we do not use IEC units in articles. This editor, as well as Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have apparently held a 10+ year grudge that they didn't get their way at WT:MOSNUM and are editing in defiance of that longstanding consensus. I appropriately tagged the article as containing original research and being unsourced days ago after these two edit warred to maintain the IEC prefixes, and that edit was reverted earlier today. At that point I elected to edit the IEC prefixes out and disambiguate them using the appropriate {{BDprefix}} template to alert readers to the discrepancy between GB/GiB, etc. I've only reverted two times in the past four days. Propose WP:BOOMERANG for Tom94022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dondervogel 2 who have taken MoS arguments to various articles to fight their lost battle one by one. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Diff of notification of this discussion for Dondervogel 2: [13]
- See also discussion at WT:MOSNUM#WP:COMPUNITS where it's clear there is no consensus to restart the debate over using IEC prefixes. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Locke Cole has reverted only twice today, to keep the article in compliance with WP:COMPUNITS. (The first of three edits today was not a revert and four reverts are needed to violate 3RR.) If anyone, it is Tom94022 who should be sanctioned, for edit-warring in clear violation of guidelines and for tendentious reporting here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Locke Cole has reverted three times today,, 9:32, 9:25 and 8:44. The usage of IEC prefixes is allowed in articles where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary - in the article in question by my count there are 7 JEDEC binary usages and 9 IEC decimal usages, clearly neither is primary. Tom94022 (talk)
- In addition, Locke Cole's original edit and subsequent revert knowingly introduced ambiguity into Memory hierarchy, in violation of the provisions of WP:COMPUNITS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) You were free to disambiguate the units using the methods shown at WP:COMPUNITS or using {{BDprefix}}, but apparently your fingers only know how to waste time on talk pages or revert. Sad. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) I've made three edits to Memory hierarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one edit and two reverts: 2021-04-30T15:44:09 (initial edit, not a revert as I introduced new content), 2021-04-30T16:25:34 (revert #1), and 2021-04-30T16:32:06 (revert #2). You quote part of WP:COMPUNITS but ignore the part that you don't like, specifically the full quote here:
in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical
(emphasis added). The full WP:COMPUNITS provides multiple examples of how to correctly disambiguate units where there may be confusion as to their meaning, all of which you fail to use over IEC prefixes which WP:COMPUNITS clearly tells editors are not to be used... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)- Dictionary definition of "Or" in English or in logic is "used to link alternatives." There are three alternatives listed in the controlling sentence that allow IEC binary units to be used - Locke Cole chooses to emphasize one of three alternative exceptions which is just irrelevant, the challenged article meets the first alternative's criterium. Tom94022 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Both types are used because someone mistakenly or deliberately added them. They aren't used because the sources called for them. Regardless, there are options for providing the reader with guidance to make clear that the terms are referring to different values without resorting to original research and giving undue weight to something that clearly has not taken the world by storm... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dictionary definition of "Or" in English or in logic is "used to link alternatives." There are three alternatives listed in the controlling sentence that allow IEC binary units to be used - Locke Cole chooses to emphasize one of three alternative exceptions which is just irrelevant, the challenged article meets the first alternative's criterium. Tom94022 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, Locke Cole's original edit and subsequent revert knowingly introduced ambiguity into Memory hierarchy, in violation of the provisions of WP:COMPUNITS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Locke Cole has reverted three times today,, 9:32, 9:25 and 8:44. The usage of IEC prefixes is allowed in articles where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary - in the article in question by my count there are 7 JEDEC binary usages and 9 IEC decimal usages, clearly neither is primary. Tom94022 (talk)
- Locke Cole has reverted only twice today, to keep the article in compliance with WP:COMPUNITS. (The first of three edits today was not a revert and four reverts are needed to violate 3RR.) If anyone, it is Tom94022 who should be sanctioned, for edit-warring in clear violation of guidelines and for tendentious reporting here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional evidence of tendentious editing by Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs)
Dondervogel 2 has also tried to repeat settled arguments (covered by WP:COMPUNITS specifically from discussions at WT:MOSNUM) at various articles, see the talk pages here:
- ThinkStation (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
- X86-64 (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
- iPad Pro (3rd generation) (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
- iPad Pro (4th generation) (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
- iPad Pro (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
- Synchronous dynamic random-access memory (|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
These are basically the same arguments just being repeated ad nauseam. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:COMPUNITS requires disambiguation, and these are examples of articles in which Locke Cole introduced ambiguity, against the spirit and letter of WP:MOSNUM. My purpose in each of these edits was to start a discussion on how to avoid ambiguity in the article in question. The arguments needed to be the same in each case because the manner in which ambiguity had been introduced was the same. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:COMPUNITS prescribes multiple methods for clarifying the meaning of the metric units. None of them involve using KiB, MiB or GiB except under very specific circumstances. In all other cases MoS states they are "not to be used". If you believe there was ambiguity introduced, nothing precluded you from using one of the examples cited at COMPUNITS. Instead you chose to revert or insist on a discussion about keeping the IEC units. Protracted debate over something you debated at length before is not something anyone wants, which is why the discussion at MOSNUM was immediately met with a lack of desire to reopen the discussion. If you'd like to use IEC units, you'd either need to clearly meet the exceptions provided for at COMPUNITS, or you'd need to convince a consensus of editors to change COMPUNITS to allow the edits you prefer. Individual discussions across the encyclopedia far away from editors that would be concerned with the issue are not how you bring about change. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Evidence of disruptive editing by Locke Cole at RAR (file format)
- Yeah, me reverting two edits by someone who was engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING is sure "disruptive"... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Result: No violation. The best place to solve the underlying issue might be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:COMPUNITS where a talk thread already exists. If people think that the style advice at WP:COMPUNITS is ambiguous, or is too permissive towards MiB and KiB a new RfC might be needed. Note that WP:ARBATC provides discretionary sanctions for disputes about the MOS, though the sanctions seem to apply only on MOS-related pages, not on article talk pages. If the revert war that was reported here continues, admins may have to do something under the usual edit warring rules. That might consist of warnings followed by blocks. All this can be avoided if those interested will wait for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Karma1998 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page: Kingdom of Judah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Karma1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 20:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- 20:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020747153 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
- 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020746368 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Stop distorting reality. That is not what archaeologists say"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745857 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
- 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745710 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
- 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745025 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Things have not changed much since 2014, in fact now we have more proof towards my point"
- 16:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "I was forced to edit this page, since it heavily distorted reality: the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed and have rejected Finkelstein's opinion. Not only that, Mazar's opinion is also distorted, since he supports the existence of the United Monarchy"
- 01:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Archaeological record */ Now the page is equilibrated and reports actual archaeology"
- 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Archaeological record */"
- 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
- 01:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
- 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion */ WP:FTN"
- 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingdom of Judah."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Edit war"
- 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ win by default"
- 20:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ deleted Mazar's opinion"
- 20:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ typo"
- 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ he also stated stuff you dislike"
Comments:
User:Fleets reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: )
Page: Paul Gallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fleets (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: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [27]
Comments:
This is a weird one, so apologies. I removed an unnecessary redirect from Gallen's article on the 20 April, New South Wales, Australia --> New South Wales, for obvious reasons. Fleets reverted three times with this rationale. I couldn't find any mention of the redirect being recommended at the suggested project page and "oh but it makes the location appear as the same colour" is just daft. They then made a fourth partial revert after I mentioned the unnecessary redirect isn't covered by any aspect of WP:RPURPOSE, but this time linking Australia on it's own. Again, simply to make the location appear as one colour. After getting clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking that Australia should not be linked (I pinged Fleets to the discussion, in an attempt to encourage them to engage on the matter, they declined), I removed it on 29 April. Fleets responded by edit warring the unnecessary redirect back in, including this, which to me has crossed the line from stubborn to plain old disruptive. I haven't left an edit warring template on their talk page as they're an experienced editor, which is also the reason why I didn't report their breach of 3RR on 20 April. – 2.O.Boxing 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
And the odd disruption continues. Has now removed Australia entirely, simply to make the location "appear as one colour". It's stepping into ownership territory now. – 2.O.Boxing 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to clarify for any reviewing admin, these three reverts by me were inline with 3RR, to enforce any clearly established consensus
which was clarified by experienced editors at the MOS:Linking discussion. – 2.O.Boxing 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
And now an attempt to avoid 3RR by reverting while logged out. – 2.O.Boxing 12:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
User:74 observer reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )
Page: The Troubles in Rosslea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74 observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [32]
Comments:
Clear attempt to repeat this addition, virtually word for word including the needless capitalisation of "Cleansing". User was informed about Troubles 1RR restriction, chose to revert anyway. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Also 1RR breach at second article at Provisional Irish Republican Army, to this version. Revert #1 and revert#2. FDW777 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Strong concerns here about Wikipedia being used as a platform for whitewashing the Provisional IRA and promoting their and other IRA incarnations' subversive agenda. Wikipedia should not allow itself be used for that disingenuous purpose. This behaviour has manifested in, for example, FDW777 claiming that the murder of a completely innocent civilian in Rosslea, Douglas Deering, is not 'notable', see: Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea. The Provisional IRA page is now in a ridiculous state with a plethora of inaccurate and biased 'citations' (over 400). 74 observer (talk)
User:41.47.200.65 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked)
Page: Missionary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.47.200.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ colonialism isnt a thing of the past. No work or piece or source out there attributes an "end" to colonialism. People still havent got their land back and europeans are still colonizing, as well as engaging in many new forms of colonialism known as neo colonialism, to say its a thing of the past is misleading and sounds kinda biased towards colonizers if u ask me. There is absolutely no proof that colonialism ended yet mountains of it alluding to its continuation i.e missionaries"
- 20:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
- 19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "there now its not disruptive, just added a fact"
- 19:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020737544 by Denisarona (talk)"
- 19:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020737301 by Golem08 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on MIssionary."
- 20:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Missionary colonialism */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Colonialism */ new section"
- 21:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Colonialism */ reply"
Comments:
I am hopeful this user can bring their good ideas to the project, but they are not hearing the multiple earnest appeals to stop edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
User:82.3.149.129 reported by User:31.53.124.255 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.3.149.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
As you can see, my edit notes and my edit itself states the distinction, and my latest edit even includes a reference. Not only is the user undoing my work, the user is also deleting names which are credited as working on the programme.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Nothing has been written on talk pages, however the edit summery has been used clearly.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
- Blocked – 3 months. Continuation of the pattern of warring for which this IP was blocked for a month back in December. At that time, User:ToBeFree commented in the block notice: "edit warring combined with a complete, active rejection of any attempts to build a consensus, including the repeated removal of the other user's comments from multiple discussion pages". To illustrate that the IP's approach has not changed, today they removed their own edit warring report. On 15 April they removed someone else's post from article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
User:109.252.123.71/User:Mammooth reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )
Page: Proto-Indo-European homeland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.252.123.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mammooth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [38]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Et cetera; see history
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] [47]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Svetlana Zharnikova ff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [48]
Comments:
User:Mammooth, obviously the same editor, has already been blocked for edit-warring on the same content. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:109.93.0.125 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: )
Page: Turkish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.93.0.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] [55]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [56]
Comments:
User:109.93.0.125 is disregarding the relevant discussion from approximately two months ago, namely under Talk:Turkish_Land_Forces#Active_since_209_BC?, where consensus was reached, while at the same time violating WP:NOPA and WP:CIVIL guidelines as seen in the "reason" of his second diff above, but also in a comment he wrote in the talk page, namely this one. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:109.93.0.125 is WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, violated repeatedly the WP:CONSENSUS, and is making personal attacks against editors using their ethnicities, which I had to remove myself: [57] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much to say. This IP user is doing unconstructive edits, personal attacks, and edit warring.--Visnelma (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Mischievous88 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked)
Page: Ji Chang-wook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mischievous88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021033038 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
- 14:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021032832 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
- 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021032714 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC) to 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021027484 by MrOllie (talk)"
- 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 13:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- 13:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 13:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017949772 by Aoowassana (talk)"
- 13:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ji Chang-wook."
- 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Ji Chang-wook."
- 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ji Chang-wook."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user keeps mass-deleting sourced content from the page, has been reverted by several editors, warned on their talk page, yet they continue with this. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE following a report at AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Adam Ramzy reported by User:180.242.74.101 (Result: No violation)
Page: Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adam Ramzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [59]
- [60]
- [61]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [63]
Comments: This user named Adam Ramzy has been repeatedly remove sourced content in the article. He also appeared in edit warring with another user.
180.242.74.101 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2021 (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. Further, the user has not reverted since they were warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:History of the Earth and World and history and history reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )
Page: Kayqubad I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: History of the Earth and World and history and history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
The first revert is by an IP, which is most likely the same user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Sergow reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: )
Page: Oradour-sur-Glane massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sergow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] (Deleted by editor with edit summary "go away" [74])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [76] (editor deleted with edit summary "go away" [77])
Comments
- Account was created on 30 June 2020 [78], but only made first edit yesterday. [79]
- Unless I am missing something I am only seeing 3 reverts, so not a 3RR violation. You seem to list a bold edit as a revert above for some reason with you two tied at 3 reverts each. Though I will agree it all looks fishy. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The reviewing admin should note that PakcMecEng is like a carrion crow in regard to me, sticking his nose into my business whenever and wherever possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed some really basic grammar errors. I described what I was doing in the edit summaries. I did not expect thanks, but I certainly did not expect to be attacked in this way. This aggressive and thoroughly unpleasant user has not made any coherent case for undoing my edits. Obviously, there is no coherent case for restoring ungrammatical text. They have claimed that I need to establish a consensus for correct grammar, pestered me repeatedly on my talk page, and now report me here. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous reaction to someone fixing errors in an article. Sergow (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also note that items 1 and 3 on the list here are not reverts. To be attacked and misrepresented in this way for fixing grammar errors really is quite disgusting. Sergow (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The nature of the edits is irrelevant. Your edits were disputed, which means the dispute needs to be cleared up on the talk page, before the edits can be restored. You were told this on the article talk page and on your own talk page, but ignored this to restore them. All the edits were the alteration of existing material (hence reverts, per WP:Revert), not the addition of new material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)