Mattdaviesfsic (talk | contribs) Adding new report for ThomasMargam. Tag: Twinkle |
|||
Line 301: | Line 301: | ||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> |
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> |
||
== [[User:Mr Ernie]] reported by [[User:Zaathras]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hunter Biden laptop controversy}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mr Ernie}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1135064871] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1135076240] Mr Ernie reverts once, this is allowed. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1135078367] Mr Ernie reverts twice. claiming "1RR exception - restoring consensus text" in the edit summary, but none [[WP:3RRNO]]'s 8 criteria do not apply. |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' I'm not sure how to show this excpt to link to [[Template:Editnotices/Page/Hunter Biden laptop controversy|the edit notice]] which specifies the article is under 1RR. |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [[Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Topic_bans_needed]] mr Ernie calls for topic bans for others. This was also brought up by me [[Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy/Archive_5#A_disputed_tag_has_nothing_to_do_with_consensus_text|in December]] |
|||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_Ernie&diff=prev&oldid=1135087598] |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
|||
Just to reiterate that this isn't a 3RR violation, but 1RR. User claimed their 2nd revert was covered under [[WP:3RRNO]], but it clearly is not. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 15:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:41, 22 January 2023
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:Philomathes2357 reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Blocked)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Cliven Bundy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Philomathes2357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 2023-01-18T03:48:44
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 2023-01-18T04:17:05
- 2023-01-18T04:34:15
- 2023-01-18T04:43:20
- 2023-01-18T04:51:25
- 2023-01-18T06:24:48
- 2023-01-18T06:43:42
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2023-01-18T04:37:02 (warning issued between 2nd and 3rd revert above per timestamps)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cliven Bundy#"Antigovernment" or "Anti-federal government"?
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2023-01-18T05:35:53
Comments:
- Note that Philomathes2357 is claiming they are exempt from 3RR because of BLP concerns, however, the discussion on the talk page is not exactly a consensus that it is a BLP concern. BLP is important, but at the end of the day we still operate on consensus and no consensus exists for the edits Philomathes2357 is attempting to force through. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I also warned this editor of 3RR/EW however, I then noticed the warning that was placed previously (the warning diff above) that this editor removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Edit: Added two additional diffs of reverts, editor refuses to back away from their claim of BLP exemption to 3RR, see edit history at Cliven Bundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They have been reverted by three unique editors thus far. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- BLP violations do not require consensus to remove. In fact, BLP states:
- " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
- The content in question is unambiguously BLP-violative. I invited the two users who expressed disagreement to 1) open an RFC about how to source and attribute the violative sentence, or 2) re-write the violative sentence to make it comply with BLP. Here is the thread I made on this at the BLP noticeboard. The fact that one editor disagrees, while accusing me of being a "nazi", "whitewashing", and "trolling", is not sufficient to justify maintaining BLP-violative content, and I will continue to remove it if it is re-inserted. In fact, the conduct of the editor who persistently re-introduced the content is questionable, in my view, and would warrant closer scrutiny by administrators than my own in regards to this matter. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The content is very longstanding content that enjoys tacit community consensus, so it is not concerning enough to be a BLP concern. It's basically sky is blue knowledge about his public stance on several issues and not sensitive personal information.
- With your numerous warnings, this behavior reveals an incurable edit warring mentality we cannot allow. I move for an indef block this time. Before I thought an AP2 topic ban might help, but that clearly won't work, hence a ban. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This user has been disruptive in far more ways than edit warring. A simple glance at their talk page proves that, not to mention their extremely tedious sealioning and bludgeoning at The Greyzone, Joe Biden, and MOS talk. Dronebogus (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please block immediately. This is getting crazy. Repeated warnings from several editors are not working. Philomathes2357 continues to edit war. The content is basic and well-known information in the lead based on sourced content in the body. It is not sensitive BLP information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- They also just forum-shopped their way onto the BLP noticeboard when their edit war went south, just like the MOS/The Greyzone masacree. Dronebogus (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Because they immediately delete unfavorable content from their talk page, it looks fairly clean, but an examination of the actual talk page history tells a very different story, one of an edit warrior who is constantly being warned and getting in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a thread about the specific edits reported by @Locke Cole. I'd like to know what uninvolved administrators have to say about those edits as they apply to the text BLP which I quoted. I'm done removing the content, even though I think it's clearly unsourced and BLP-violative, because I don't feel like having a pissing contest with a bunch of people who have been assuming bad faith on my part. You've made it more than clear that you don't like me for other reasons, but let's discuss those other reasons elsewhere. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a thread about your edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so as someone with no previous experience of the dispute or the user (the first such respondent in this thread so far I think), my observations are mixed. I actually think Philomathes might have a cognizable BLP argument here. It's weakened a little by some obvious WP:SYNTH stretching they did at times in the Bundy talk page discussions, but they are correct in a more general sense that any controversial descriptor ought to be directly attributable to at least one source. Potentially controversial statements are not consistent with WP:BLUESKY, even if that principle were expressed in something more than an essay, which cannot trump an important policy like WP:BLP (or WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ONUS, or WP:NEUTRAL for that matter). I don't think Bundy is being mis-characterized in the slightest by the content that Phil is challenging, but challenged they have, and the burden is upon the parties wishing to retain the content to meet the WP:RS showing expected. I can't imagine there is not a cite to be found that meets the RS standard for these facts.
- On the other hand, Philomathes is clearly being highly WP:TENDENTIOUS and dismissive of appropriate process and consensus. Aside from the blatant WP:3RR violations (though I observe it takes at least two to tango...), they blew right past WP:BRD. WP:BLP is not a magic talisman to be waved around, abrogating a member of this community from following the normal dispute resolution processes. Philomathes, even if you think you have that policy as a solid basis for your preferred outcome, you still have to abide by all behavioural and proecedural requirements in policy for forging a consensus decision. In short, if you find yourself going against what almost everybody else involved in a given dispute is arguing for, and your edit would change established, status quo content, it's time to slow down and avail yourself of the afore-mentioned dispute resolution processes, rather than charging forward and trying to enforce your edits by fiat. If you really do have the right end of the stick on the policy and sourcing, you should prevail with enough community exposure to the dispute. And if you happen to be misinterpreting community consensus in the content in question, you will save yourself the trouble of being seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE for something that was never going to stay. So you win either way by keeping your cool and avoiding an edit war at all costs.
- So, I'm not sure what the solution is here. I don't know why Philomathes did not open the RfC they proposed themselves before edit warring. Perhaps that can still be a solution on the content side. Behaviourally, I see plenty of reason to be concerned about letting Philomathes continue to contribute on this article, but if they could show some understanding of where they went off the rails here and commit to using the appropriate processes and engaging the breaks well short of edit warring, I believe I for one could be convinced that a sanction is not warranted here. Afterall, while Philomathes definitely gets the lion's share of the blame here, there was edit warring in multiple directions, and as I observed above, that talk page shows some laissez-faire attitudes towards WP:ONUS. I get that it's frustrating not to be able to call the spade for the spade all the time, but that's often the name of the game here, after-all. SnowRise let's rap 08:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Philomathes2357, I would listen to this comment. What little I've seen of your edits, I think you are working on a good principle and one that probably would make Wikipedia better overall if more editors adopted a show rather than tell attitude towards labels. A series of contentious labels opening an article is not good writing, its the sort of thing people often do when they are appealing to emotions in there readers. As an encyclopedia I would hope we would never do that. On the other hand, rarely does saying the same thing again and again fix the problem. I know I'm guilty of the same and one of my evolutions on Wikipedia is to try recognize when I'm just repeating without persuading. This appears to be one of those times. I would suggest the following, understand why people are here (what did you do wrong) then ask how you should have handled this issue and agree to follow that feedback. Most editors will forgive if it's clear the problem has been understood and changes are made. Springee (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that Philmathes is being highly WP:TENDENTIOUS which, with his tendency to WP:BLUDGEON seems to be part of their modus operandi. I'd block if I were sure I'd never reverted an edit of theirs and I don't have the time to check and suspect I have. But I have no doubt that even if not here a block is in their future. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked by another administrator. Salvio giuliano 13:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is Bishonen's indef really appropriate here? A block might be reasonable but indef seems very extreme for an editor with an otherwise clean block log. Is there more here? Springee (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just read his talk page and posts. It will take quite a while but hopefully you’ll see why. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but since he immediately deletes nearly everything that's negative, read it by going through the history. While editors are allowed to delete most types of content on their talk pages, this example of extreme ownership behavior (editors do not own their talk pages) makes me think that we should place restrictions on that right. It's uncollaborative, uncollegial, and hampers the intended function of user talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
[W]e should place restrictions on that right ... to delete most types of content on their talk pages
That's a bridge too far for me. As evidenced above, I ultimately realized they had already been warned of 3RR by Vizorblaze by going through their talk page history. A block log (such as mine) is already a "badge of shame" for truly egregious behavior. There's no need to force editors to wear warnings/notifications any longer than it takes them to read and (hopefully) understand them. Ultimately a talk page is just for communication to an editor, if they choose to engage (reply) or disengage (delete) is ultimately up to them, the page history exists regardless of those choices. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)- Agree, forced archiving is excessive. Instead, repeatedly deleting complaints— and only complaints —could potentially be listed as a disruptive activity aggravating other disruptive activities (i.e. accruing more serious penalties). Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- +1 to the above. I have great respect for Valjean, but as someone who likes his talk page very ephemeral, I think this is a bit of using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Deletiops can be an annoyance in some instances, but I don't think it's worth this extreme a solution. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agree, forced archiving is excessive. Instead, repeatedly deleting complaints— and only complaints —could potentially be listed as a disruptive activity aggravating other disruptive activities (i.e. accruing more serious penalties). Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but since he immediately deletes nearly everything that's negative, read it by going through the history. While editors are allowed to delete most types of content on their talk pages, this example of extreme ownership behavior (editors do not own their talk pages) makes me think that we should place restrictions on that right. It's uncollaborative, uncollegial, and hampers the intended function of user talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just read his talk page and posts. It will take quite a while but hopefully you’ll see why. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is Bishonen's indef really appropriate here? A block might be reasonable but indef seems very extreme for an editor with an otherwise clean block log. Is there more here? Springee (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Minaro123 reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Indefinite partial block from page and talk page)
Page: Aryan Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minaro123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Reverted to last good ,The meaning and reason for its name should be added in Emdoym"
- 17:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Reverted for the last good , TrangaBellam had reverted just because the spelling of Endonym was misspelt"
- 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Reverted the last good , TrangaBellam please stop removing the reliable source"
- 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "TrangaBellam,The next time you remove reliable sources, you will be at AE."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Aware of 3RR - Engaged in semilar behaviour, a fortnight ago.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "/* MINT */ R"
- 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "/* EXTREMELY RUDE AND NEGATIVE STATEMENT about these Region needs to be deleted */ Indent"
- 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "/* Endonym */ Reply"
Comments:
Edit warring against multiple editors, incl. Joshua Jonathan and me. There is no engagement on the talk page beyond ludicrous claims like Wikipedia having an exhaustive list of reliable sources, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, incorporating copyright violations. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- A topic ban might be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a AC/DS (now, AC/CT) topic area; so, an administrator can impose an indefinite page-block or a topic-ban. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- A topic ban might be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment
I want to report against TrangaBellam for undiscusion edit ,removing of Reliable source , and reverting the edit done by reliable source
TrangaBellam had added a Meaning of Aryan valley and it's genetics multiple times in a small articles of Aryan valley ,The identity of Brokpa whether they are being Aryan or not are being massively discussed in a Aryan valley page instead of Talking about its Geography,and History of its kingdom , Politics of these region .
I reverted for the good of these articles however TrangaBellam reverted my edit even when i have added a reliable source like BBC ,The hindu .
I apologise for reverting , however i had to do it because of TrangaBellam was adding a non neutral view and added only about the name of Aryan valley and it's meaning .
I will refrain from reverting back, i am extremely sorry , however please stop TrangaBellam from doing a edit on Aryan valley to make it look racist and bad.
Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
THE Aryan valley page which was created by me , Aryan valley is a geographical region which was previously known as ' Dha hanu region ' ,Dha hanu was a independent region ruled by a Dard chief in past . The region was notable because of it being a independent region in past and has a historical importance . However , TrangaBellam had added a multiple statement on the Aryan valley articles page on the same thing that is : 1:The reason for the name " Aryan valley". 2: the genetic study of the people of Aryan valley. The one time mentioned of the meaning of the name and the genetic study should have been enough .But multiple mentioned of the same things doesn't look good. Though Aryan valley is a geographical Region and It had a history since it was ruled independently by a Brokpa cheif. I wanted to write about the geographical Boundary, History from reliable source , however i was always reverted by TrangaBellam . In past,I wrote in talk page multiple times and asked for Discussion to TrangaBellam ,but TrangaBellam has always ignored my talks and kept reverting. Please take a action against TrangaBellam and look in the Archieve Talk page of Aryan valley to known more detail . Following are the undiscusion edit done by TrangaBellam,though me and Elinruby had a discussion before adding a content in Aryan valley , because Aryan valley is a sensative Area boundary with Gilgit Baltistan in Pakistan.i requested TrangaBellam for a discussion in talk page before edit on Aryan valley ,however TrangaBellam always ignored me , Please see the Archives Talk page of Aryan valley where I have asked TrangaBellam multiple times for discussion.: The reverted and removing of Reliable source done by TrangaBellam on Aryan valley are:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134408486 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134413122 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134427209 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134430918
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131340841
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131301423
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131155114
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131153683
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131146363
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131111944
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:History/Aryan_Valley&offset=20230102204537
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131155114
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131146875
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131104250
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131103974
And have a look at these talk page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Valley&oldid=1131172062
Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Have a look at Talk:Aryan Valley#Endonym for the meaning of "undiscusion." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely from Aryan Valley and Talk:Aryan Valley per discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIP, as noted in discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Sparkle1 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134456088 by Tewdar (talk) you are clearly now just engaged in mind the boomerang as it hits you for edit warring"
- 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134453612 by Sideswipe9th (talk) go to the talk page"
- 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134450433 by Asarlaí (talk)see discusion"
- 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134449419 by Sweet6970 (talk) lol get out this is clearly partisan and clearly duplicative, talk about this because this was wholly rejected previously"
- 19:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "/* Opposition */ not sneaking in the revolt nonsence"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This is a pretty clear cut 3RR violation, as Sparkle1 has now made 4 reverts in the last hour. Additionally Sparkle1 is quite clearly edit warring against consensus, as there is a rough consensus based on both the talk page discussion and the edit summaries on the article that this information should be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think a stern telling-off might be sufficient. Hopefully that'll do the trick. They're just a bit, erm, overly enthusiastic, I think... Tewdar 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately when looking at Sparkle1's talk page, there are numerous warnings and discussions with administrator's about her behaviour. The sections "Your behavior", "Fresh start", and "Fed up with this" all seem relevant to this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pretty clear-cut. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Dudedood reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)
Page: The Federalist (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dudedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]
Comments:
An SPA that is edit warring over this text, and with this [[8]] is making it clear they will not stop. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Doug Weller. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Lollller reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Elizabeth I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lollller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: special:diff/1134902627
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- special:diff/1133830284
- special:diff/1133583609
- special:diff/1133575911
- special:diff/1133570027
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/1132153253, special:diff/1132203664
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/1132900297, and on their talk page at special:diff/1133581088
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: special:diff/1134904092
Comments:
This is a new user, and I don't want to be bitey, but they have completely ignored the messages I left on their talk page, both templated and personal, the talk page discussion on the article talk page, and just keep coming back every few days to revert to their preferred version. I recognise that DrKay has given them another warning, which I think is now their fourth if you include the personal message I left them, but warnings don't seem to have any effect with this person - I think that a block from the article would be useful - either they will make their case on the talk page and we can discuss it, or they will have to drop the matter. Girth Summit (blether) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb23. I'm not sure how much of an impact a 72 hour block will have - they're pretty intermittent in their editing - but perhaps it will be successful as a shot across the bows. If they reinstate their edit again when the block expires without engaging on talk, would you be prepared to consider an indef pblock from the article? Girth Summit (blether) 17:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Let's wait and see what happens. My view is they're disruptive across multiple articles, and if they continue after the block expires, I believe an indefinite sitewide block is more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I'm content to wait and see. FWIW, at first I thought they were just trolling, based on username and contribs in the 'historical British monarchs' subject area. Their edits in other subject areas look reasonable though, so there's a chance they will become a productive contributor - I'll keep my fingers crossed. Girth Summit (blether) 19:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Let's wait and see what happens. My view is they're disruptive across multiple articles, and if they continue after the block expires, I believe an indefinite sitewide block is more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb23. I'm not sure how much of an impact a 72 hour block will have - they're pretty intermittent in their editing - but perhaps it will be successful as a shot across the bows. If they reinstate their edit again when the block expires without engaging on talk, would you be prepared to consider an indef pblock from the article? Girth Summit (blether) 17:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:Eccekevin (Result: )
Page: Dean Preston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [9]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]
Comments:
User has removed well-sourced material that had been on the page for a long time. When the first removals, began, a talk was started. While the talk was ongoing, the user continued to remove said material and revert the re-addition by myself and another user. The user is unilaterally removing material without reaching a consensus and before the discussion is over, believing that providing rationale in his revision notes is enough. I have pleaded and warned about edit warring and to wait the discussion on the talk page first, to no avail. Eccekevin (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a BLP. In each instances, I have explained the reason for removal but OP has reinserted these claims. 3RR does not apply in this case. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Explaining your opinion does not mean that 1) your claim is right nor nor 2) gives you the right to unilaterally force your changes nor 3) excuses 3RR. That's what a talk page is for. Eccekevin (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have demonstrated incredible AGF but enough is enough. I shouldn't have to work this hard to fix this page. This is such a waste of my time. I think BOOMERANG is called for. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the OP themselves violated 3RR, making 3 reversions, 2 of which restore false and contentious material to a BLP.
- 1
- 2
- 3. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a few days after doing the same thing in the space of ~26 hrs here in an attempt to falsely claim the subject is a landlord:
- 1
- 2
- 3. What appears to be a team of accounts has repeatedly attempted to reinsert this false claim eventually stopped by JesseRafe. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Explaining your opinion does not mean that 1) your claim is right nor nor 2) gives you the right to unilaterally force your changes nor 3) excuses 3RR. That's what a talk page is for. Eccekevin (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
User:ThomasMargam reported by User:Mattdaviesfsic (Result: )
Page: Gwili Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThomasMargam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1135046009 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) to 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- 08:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134981807 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
- 08:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134981887 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
- 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134983101 by 10mmsocket (talk) Why do you keep deleting it?!?!"
- 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134974834 by Mattdaviesfsic (talk)"
- 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1134972457 by Mattdaviesfsic (talk)"
- 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Overhaul of the page."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC) to 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Updated the stock list."
- 17:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ""
- 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ""
- 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Updated the stock list."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gwili Railway."
- 21:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gwili Railway."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Mr Ernie reported by User:Zaathras (Result: )
Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [17] Mr Ernie reverts once, this is allowed.
- [18] Mr Ernie reverts twice. claiming "1RR exception - restoring consensus text" in the edit summary, but none WP:3RRNO's 8 criteria do not apply.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm not sure how to show this excpt to link to the edit notice which specifies the article is under 1RR.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Topic_bans_needed mr Ernie calls for topic bans for others. This was also brought up by me in December
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]
Comments:
Just to reiterate that this isn't a 3RR violation, but 1RR. User claimed their 2nd revert was covered under WP:3RRNO, but it clearly is not. Zaathras (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)