Tag: Reply |
→User:62.121.129.170 reported by User:64andtim (Result: ): Declined (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
*{{AN3|bb}}, Pedantic Aristotle for 24 hours and Uniru288 for 72 hours, since Uniru288 was blocked last month for edit warring at the same article. Both have gone over 3RR on the article. [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|bb}}, Pedantic Aristotle for 24 hours and Uniru288 for 72 hours, since Uniru288 was blocked last month for edit warring at the same article. Both have gone over 3RR on the article. [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:62.121.129.170]] reported by [[User:64andtim]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:62.121.129.170]] reported by [[User:64andtim]] (Result: Declined) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Green Boots}} |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Green Boots}} |
||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
::However, I did not revert any dispute edit(s) on the article Green Boots, and have told the editor not to revert further on said article. I think they started a discussion on the talk page. <small>''signed,''</small> [[User:64andtim|<span style="color:#0024FF">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:64andtim|<span style="color:darkblue">chat</span>]]) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
::However, I did not revert any dispute edit(s) on the article Green Boots, and have told the editor not to revert further on said article. I think they started a discussion on the talk page. <small>''signed,''</small> [[User:64andtim|<span style="color:#0024FF">'''''64andtim'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:64andtim|<span style="color:darkblue">chat</span>]]) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I have no objection to a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|third opinion]], however that editor may become involved. [[User:Peaceray|Peaceray]] ([[User talk:Peaceray|talk]]) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
::I have no objection to a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|third opinion]], however that editor may become involved. [[User:Peaceray|Peaceray]] ([[User talk:Peaceray|talk]]) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|d}} both Peaceray and the IP are are 3 reverts and are edit warring, and regarding [[WP:EDITCONSENSUS]] {{tq|An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted}}, them removing the content disputes the presumed consensus. Being right is not an exception to edit warring, if the IP were to be blocked Peaceray would be blocked for having made the same number of reverts. I suggest you discuss the merits of the content on the talk page rather than giving a technical reason for why you believe a consensus already exists. The article has also been reported at [[WP:RFPP]], but all involved parties should now use the talk page to resolve the dispute rather than continuing to revert each other; further edit warring will likely lead to blocks. [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:58, 3 September 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:120.29.79.39 reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Semi)
Page: Itzy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 120.29.79.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173158742 by Paper9oll (talk) Did not provide conclusive explanation on [[1]] and still no reply on the talk page, restoring unjustified content removal"
- 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) "No reply on the talk page. Did not provide explanation, restoring unjustified content removal"
- 08:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) "Did you even read all what i just mentioned, ? Infobox should summarize the information in the article. You haven't provided any argument for why it's unnecessary other than saying it's unnecessary"
- 07:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) "Why its unnecessary? Infobox should summarize the information in the article, fyi Taylor Swift has that in her infobox"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Result: Page semiprotected. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Göktuğ538538 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page: Battle of Nicopolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Göktuğ538538 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [2]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]
Comments:
User:Göktuğ538538 continues to revert and not engage on the article talk page. I have responded to OrionNimrod on the article talk page with references to clear up the troop figures. I explicitly told Göktuğ538538 to take their concerns to the talk page and was told, "I don't have any concerns. I'm just saying what is written in the sources. If you are aware, I wrote "higher estimate". These are mentioned in the sources, even if modern estimates say 20,000, I write what is mentioned in the sources. See Resources". Thereby, ignoring the request to take the issue to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Admins may want to look at the edit history of Siege of Krujë (1467), since it appears that users Göktuğ538538, Overvecht3301, and Keremmaarda are tag-team reverting. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Maskedsingerfan1938 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page: The Masked Singer (Australian season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maskedsingerfan1938 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC) to 05:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- 05:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- 05:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- 05:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- 01:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
- 09:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:45, 26 August 2023 "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
- 08:02, 27 August 2023 "Notification: adding content without providing reliable sources"
- 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
- 08:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
- 08:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Maskedsingerfan1938 "/* Continued addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content */ new section"
- 09:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC) on Talk:The Masked Singer (Australian season 5) "/* Addition of leaked information using unreliable sources */ new section"
Comments:
Continued vandalism of table in The Masked Singer (Australian season 5); edits contain only original research and when citations do occur, they only use self-published sources (such as mediaspy, fandom). Happily888 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Fdom5997 (Result: Nominator partially blocked 2 weeks)
this user constantly cancels the correct edits that are fixed by a good source in the article Bashkir language. he cements his position with a long-outdated and untrustworthy source Başqurd (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this specific article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (Result: Page protected)
Please take a look, there is an edit war. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
User:DamnOscar08 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Southern Provinces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DamnOscar08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173445802 by M.Bitton (talk)Cope separatistst + Nobody supports W.s nowadays"
- 13:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173442347 by Manticore (talk) Re-adding because of removal"
- 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173438702 by M.Bitton (talk) Cope"
- 12:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173437809 by M.Bitton (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Southern Provinces."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* September 2023 */ new section"
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
User:31.205.18.96 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page: List of ethnic cleansing campaigns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.205.18.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "You first reverted my edit (which indicated how there wasn't a consensus yet) without a consensus."
- 18:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "My bad. I added the sources inside the texts. I've been giving my reasons in the summary boxes that were consistently ignored by edit warriors who clearly didnt want to discuss."
- 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173483192 by M.Bitton (talk)You provided no valid explanation for YOUR edit warring."
- 18:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173469793 by Rsk6400 (talk)YOU ar the one edit warring"
- 16:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1172778499 by Rsk6400 (talk)Is edit warring simply something that you dont like?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
See article history and IP talk page [10] regarding edit warring // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- The edit warring continues, even after this report was opened. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- You started the edit warring without speaking consensus. I've given my sources for why the same wording with less authoritativeness used in other entries of the same article works here too. 31.205.18.96 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: please see the note that was left by Daniel Case in the last report. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
User:AgntOtrth reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Full protection for three days)
Page: Montgomery Riverfront brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AgntOtrth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173536226 by FormalDude (talk) The refernce is not a talk show, it is not science, it is not politics, the source is prohibited from being used in the specific context."
- Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) to 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173442583 by FormalDude (talk) Restoring background information"
- 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Background and incident */ This is not a political issue. It is not a science issue. As it is neither political or scientific, it is a reliable source; please see the reliable source list."
- 00:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "The video linked IS the video that has been in the article for many days. A secondary source is not required for the specific purpose as used."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Montgomery Riverfront brawl."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Montgomery Riverfront brawl "/* Recent edits */ new section"
Comments:
Page protected in full for three days since the two of you have been the only ones editing (by which I mean edit-warring) for the last three days. I grant that the weight of fault is heavier on Agnt because a review of their talk page shows a history, particularly on Killing of Tyre Nichols, that speaks to a pattern of increasingly tendentious editing. And objectively Dude is on the right side of policy it seems to me.
But for purposes of enforcing WP:EW, right, save for some very narrowly defined exceptions, doesn’t matter. Besides, Dude’s talk page shows that he has also rubbed people the wrong way at times. If I blocked Agnt I’d have to block Dude too.
So, instead, I have full-protected the page for three days in the hope that the talk page discussion can play out such that Agnt comes to understand the issues with their edits without deciding to further edit war.
I have also a) designated the article as coming within a contentious topic area, in this case AP2, via the usual notice on the talk page. I have b) further advised Agnt about CTOPS, something I am surprised had not previously been done given all the drama they caused at the Tyre Nichols article.
I will not be logging this protection as a CTOPS action, despite having had to semi-protect this article a couple of weeks ago, but it is clear from the frequent requests for said protection at RFPP before and since that from the standpoint of the article at least, CTOPS designation was a long time coming. So I warn Agnt that, if they resume edit warring once this protection ends, I will log any sanction I take as a CTOPS action, since you have now been properly advised, and suggest any other admin take the same step. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Alaa kka reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page: Derry Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alaa kka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 16:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 15:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Correcting"
- 15:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "It is literally a show about an Irish Catholic family, in Derry, in IRELAND (island). Stop calling it British. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s set in Ireland."
- 13:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Derry Girls."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
There is an existing comment on the page instructing editors to not change the nationality without reopening the discussion on the article talk page. bojo | talk 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Uniru288 reported by User:Pedantic Aristotle (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Javier Milei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uniru288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]
Comments:
Please see discussion on Talk page [19].
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Both Uniru and PA are at fault here. When Uniru objected to PAs edits, PA should have attempted to resolve the issue with discussion, rather than try to edit war their edit in. Looking at their edit histories, both Uniru and PA have exceeded the 3RR. On that basis, I would support blocking both editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked, Pedantic Aristotle for 24 hours and Uniru288 for 72 hours, since Uniru288 was blocked last month for edit warring at the same article. Both have gone over 3RR on the article. Aoidh (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
User:62.121.129.170 reported by User:64andtim (Result: Declined)
Page: Green Boots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.121.129.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173678209 by Peaceray (talk) the article is not about the name of the body. it's about the body. you cannot rationally believe otherwise. evidently just enjoy edit warring"
- 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173669137 by Peaceray (talk) you obviously just want to revert for the sake of it. the article is about the body, not the name of the body, so this version is correct."
- 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173659727 by Peaceray (talk) not a valid reason for reverting"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.4)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of phrase by 62.121.129.170 */ comment"
Comments:
Possible edit warring, and this IP restored their preferred version despite possibly violating WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that WP:BRD is an essay & not policy. However WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:EDITWAR are both policies, & both 64andtim & I have asked 62.121.129.170 to discuss the matter on the talk page with no response at this time. Peaceray (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- How strange, that an unrelated third party would see an account reverting edits made by an IP, for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and report only the IP. 62.121.129.170 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- However, I did not revert any dispute edit(s) on the article Green Boots, and have told the editor not to revert further on said article. I think they started a discussion on the talk page. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a third opinion, however that editor may become involved. Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Declined both Peaceray and the IP are are 3 reverts and are edit warring, and regarding WP:EDITCONSENSUS
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted
, them removing the content disputes the presumed consensus. Being right is not an exception to edit warring, if the IP were to be blocked Peaceray would be blocked for having made the same number of reverts. I suggest you discuss the merits of the content on the talk page rather than giving a technical reason for why you believe a consensus already exists. The article has also been reported at WP:RFPP, but all involved parties should now use the talk page to resolve the dispute rather than continuing to revert each other; further edit warring will likely lead to blocks. Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)