Notrealname1234 (talk | contribs) Adding new report for WakayamaY. Tag: Twinkle |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 387: | Line 387: | ||
*Blocked one week.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*Blocked one week.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:PeeJay]] and [[User:Drew1830]] reported by [[User:67.149.160.101]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:PeeJay]] and [[User:Drew1830]] reported by [[User:67.149.160.101]] (Result: Closed) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Major League Soccer season}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Major League Soccer season}} <br /> |
||
Line 435: | Line 435: | ||
::PeeJay, your behavior was atrocious. You have been editing in Wikipedia for almost two decades, and - after a cursory glance at your lengthy block log - seem to have failed to wrap your head around how edit summaries are not a replacement for actual article page discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. If you're lucky enough to avoid a lengthy block - and there is no reason to suggest you should not be blocked - you better start accepting that you must discuss. If you can't do that, we can certainly see to it that Wikipedia doesn't let you edit here anymore. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
::PeeJay, your behavior was atrocious. You have been editing in Wikipedia for almost two decades, and - after a cursory glance at your lengthy block log - seem to have failed to wrap your head around how edit summaries are not a replacement for actual article page discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. If you're lucky enough to avoid a lengthy block - and there is no reason to suggest you should not be blocked - you better start accepting that you must discuss. If you can't do that, we can certainly see to it that Wikipedia doesn't let you edit here anymore. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Closed''' "I am a third party". Yeah, right. Posted by an IP that judging by their behaviour, is either Drew1830 or continuing their disruption - look at the number of reverts of PeeJay by then. Not happening. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Bon courage]] reported by [[User:Curran919]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Bon courage]] reported by [[User:Curran919]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 18:14, 11 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:Patriot2020 reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Justina Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patriot2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added birth name"
- 04:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Fixed birth name, incorrect ethnicity"
- 04:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added Justina Valentine’s birth name"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Justina Valentine."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
All edits have been trying to add unsourced BLP information (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 05:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I went to school with her DICK, her dads name is Michael Cetinich, her sister is Christine Cetinich. It’s false that this page displays her stage name as her birth name https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10204484738591592&id=1626123130&mibextid=GC6XAW here’s her singing with her dad Michael Cetinich you POS Patriot2020 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely Blocked, for this and the personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
User:FightinMisnformation1982 reported by User:2601:19e:4180:6d50:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63 (Result: p-blocked from article for one week)
Page: Black Irish (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FightinMisnformation1982 (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: [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]
Comments:
FightinMisnformation1982 has persistently removed sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced content, reverting multiple users. Through edit summaries, talk page warnings and article discussion, they've been informed of the issues of edit warring and proper sourcing, to little avail. Claims to wish to reach consensus on talk page ring empty, given the refusal to self-revert or make any substantive acknowledgments of policy. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- IP, thanks. I blocked them from the article for a week, and I am looking to see if further measures are warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Epwikieditor reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: No violation, should go to AN/I)
Page: Carlos Pérez (radiation oncologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epwikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Previous editor insists on reverting to inaccurate versions with false facts. Correcting for accuracy. Undid revision 1174682629 by Bbb23 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) to 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- 01:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "BBB23 is behaving like an egotistical, unprofessional troll who insists on reverting to versions with factual errors. See Talk for details. Undid revision 1174674008 by Bbb23 (talk)"
- 01:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Minor stylistic changes."
- 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Correct typographic error."
- Consecutive edits made from 22:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) to 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- 22:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "To BBB23: The most recent edits to Dr. Perez's page have been made by Dr. Perez's family, on the occasion of his recent passing. Respectfully, I am undoing your removal of my most recent edits because I respectfully disagree that the updated edits are "not constructive." There are numerous changes that correct previous errors, add context, and correct broken hyperlinks. Please do not revert. Undid revision 1174654310 by Bbb23 (talk)"
- 22:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Fixed typographic error in name of ASTRO organization."
- 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 00:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Moved external websites from hyperlinks in body to "External Links," at bottom of page."
- 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Correction to Radiation Oncology departmental status"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) to 21:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected place of birth, from Medellin to Pereira, Colombia; updated information regarding publications; clarified biographical information and department status at MIR from 1976 to 2001; added detail regarding professional awards; added numerous supporting hyperlinks."
- 20:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for Academy of Science in St. Louis."
- 20:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
- 20:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
- 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
- 21:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 21:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 21:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 21:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carlos Pérez (radiation oncologist)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user is a member of the Perez family. I have left a WP:COI on their Talk page. I have warned them for their disruptive edits, which are replete with promotion and significant stylistic errors. They have not only insisted on reinstating their poor edits but have attacked me in an edit summaries (I'm apparently a troll) and declared their intention to continue reverting ("I will not rest"). I have reverted 3x, which, tbh, is one more than I prefer to do. I am also obviously WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Administrator should provide examples of "disruptive edits" which he claims, without substantiation, are "replete with promotion" and contain "significant stylistic errors."
- Administrator have never provided a single example or reference on which such claims are based.
- If administrator provides examples and explanation of content believed to be problematic or "promotional", we can have a civil conversation and try to agree on modifications. Instead, the administrator is simply reverting to factually inaccurate articles without explanation. Epwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- More details of topics to be discussed...
- I agree with administrator BBB23 that this disagreement should be based on a discussion of *content* and nothing else. Accordingly, I have the following questions for BBB23, and I look forward to receiving specific answers:
- Where was Dr. Carlos Perez born? How do you know? If Dr. Perez was born in a city other than Medellin, Colombia, why do you keep reverting to older versions of an article that misstate his place of birth? Why are you so recalcitrant in simply agreeing that accurate facts should be stated?
- Are you claiming that Dr. Perez was *not* internationally known for advances in cancer patient care, research, and education? If so, why? On what basis? Do you believe that the many global organizations that recognized his professional achievements are wrong? If so, why?
- You keep reverting to an older article that says that Dr. Perez specialized in cancers of the “head and neck.” Why? How do you know? Do you dispute that Dr. Perez standardized protocols for cancers associated with the cervix, prostate, breast and lung? If so, why?
- Do you dispute any of the biographical information provided about Dr. Perez? If so, why?
- What is your rationale for reverting to an older article with information about a specialized medical textbook that has been updated since 2013? Why would you not want to let readers know about newer versions of the textbook that reflect newer medical advances? A newer edition was published in 2018. Why are you resisting inclusion of this fact?
- From an organizational standpoint, what was the status of Radiation Oncology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology between 1976 and 2001? How do you know? Why would you resist clarifying information that specifies where this specialty resided in the larger Institute? What was the significance of what happened in 2001? How do you know?
- Do you dispute any of the awards that Dr. Perez received from medical professional organizations? If so, why?
- Dr. Perez is deceased. Given that he is not even a living person, please cite the examples of “advertising” that you claim exist in my version of the article. How is the article “promotional” about a person who is dead?
- What other factual errors do you see in the article? Please be specific.
- What “stylistic” errors appear in the article? Please be specific.
- Given that recent edits correct previous errors, add clarifying context, provide updated information since the previous versions, and do not contain “advertising” or promotional material, on what basis do you characterize those edits as “disruptive” or "unconstructive"? Please be specific.
- If you believe that my knowledge of facts about a deceased individual by virtue of knowing that person closely might constitute a “conflict of interest,” what are the sections of my edits that you believe result in exaggeration, aggrandizement, or misstatements of fact? Please be specific.
- All of these questions require specific answers and specific references because you rightly insist on discussing “content.” Let’s do that. Epwikieditor (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- No violation There have been only three reverts so far.But everything else is a problem: civility, POV, COI, sourcing or the lack thereof. This really should be discussed at AN/I; it’s outside the scope of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel, the previous administrator is not answering any of my factual questions. Indeed, throughout this entire exchange, I have never, ever been given a single example of a specific reference that is in question. My edits have repeatedly been undone -- first by BBB23, and now by other editors who are simply piling-on, as well. Additional editors also fail to specify what are the facts in question, and they are undoing past edits. So I'm effectively having all of my edits undone repeatedly, without explanation. Others are doing it too. And yet I'm being threatened with a lock-out if I revert. I don't know how to proceed. This feels very wrong. Seriously. Editors can't simply undo changes without answering my specific questions above. Please advise. I don't know how to proceed, because my questions are being ignored. Epwikieditor (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- No violation There have been only three reverts so far.But everything else is a problem: civility, POV, COI, sourcing or the lack thereof. This really should be discussed at AN/I; it’s outside the scope of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:103.171.44.94 reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Basques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.171.44.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174731772 by Semsûrî (talk) The uploader Allice Hunter stated Information available on page Basques and Basque diaspora on the English Wikipedia with UploadWizard in the file history."
- 09:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174731422 by Semsûrî (talk) Basque people live in those highlighted countries. See the Basque diaspora article."
- 09:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174730815 by Semsûrî (talk) It’s a good image for the infobox. It highlights the Basque diaspora."
- 08:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174465921 by Semsûrî (talk) Other articles about ethnic groups such as Catalans uses the same map."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
3RR breaches and has a lack of understanding in regards to not adding unsourced information (map in this case) to Wikipedia. Semsûrî (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Pirate of the High Seas reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Page protected)
Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pirate of the High Seas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Same goes for you. take it to the talkpage for consensus"
- 12:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "restoring mass content removal without consensus"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) to 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "disputed by whom?"
- 12:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Preparations */"
- 04:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "moved Background section"
- 09:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "moved to Preparations"
- 07:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."
- 12:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user (Pirate of the High Seas) has added non-neutral material to this article. A user later (Shaan Sengupta) has reverted and disputed with this edit. This user (Pirate of the High Seas) is resorting to edit warring. Requesting administrators direction. Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not vandalism. Edit warring between @Shaan Sengupta and @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Admins, please note that User:Thewikizoomer is involved in removal of sourced content, edit warring and helping his pal User:Shaan Sengupta evade 3RR by tag-teaming.
- See:
- (1) 15:34, 9 September 2023,
- (2) 12:44, 10 September 2023
- (3) 12:57, 10 September 2023 Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirate of the High Seas, @Thewikizoomer has reported me here. So how is he my pal. I am first time interacting with him here. Be a little professional with your reports. Don't make baseless claims. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thewikizoomer Editwarring is when someone does 3RR. I have reverted only once. The first one was a content removal with cleanup not a revert. Even if we take that into account its still two. So it doesn't come under Editwarring. I left that thing after I got a clue that this is going to be disputed. Its @you who has reverted twice or thrice consecutively. Besides @Pirate of the High Seas there are multiple users who want that content removed but only you who wants it there. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I did not report you @Shaan Sengupta, just mentioned that @Pirate of the High SeasPirate of the High Seas and you were involved in an incident. and yeah, @Shaan Sengupta not my pal @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thewikizoomer you clearly said edit warring between me and @Pirate of the High Seas. Since you have not reported me then please struck it to take it back. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirate of the High Seas resorted to warring and your involvement of correcting that was mentioned. You are not reported. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Understand that mentioning your username name doesn't equal to reporting. further administrators will anyways understand it when they have a look at the developments Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is no point in prefixing user names with "@" unless you're directly addressing the person, and even then it has no technical meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Got it Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirate of the High Seas resorted to warring and your involvement of correcting that was mentioned. You are not reported. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thewikizoomer you clearly said edit warring between me and @Pirate of the High Seas. Since you have not reported me then please struck it to take it back. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I did not report you @Shaan Sengupta, just mentioned that @Pirate of the High SeasPirate of the High Seas and you were involved in an incident. and yeah, @Shaan Sengupta not my pal @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have extended-confirmed protected the page because of generally noticeable disruption not limited to Pirate of the High Seas's reverts. As Pirate of the High Seas isn't extended-confirmed, they can't edit the page anymore and the report lost its necessity. Closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Shaan Sengupta reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Declined for now)
Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shaan Sengupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:57, 9 September 2023
- 16:07, 9 September 2023
- 22:12, 9 September 2023
- 06:13, 10 September 2023
- 10:58, 10 September 2023
- 12:31, 10 September 2023 (misuse of Twinkle)
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: [18]
Comments:
There's a possible 3RR violation and edit warring in a deliberate attempt at censoring the Preparations section on the article even when the content was restored by multiple editors. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirate of the High Seas its you who is desperatly adding that. If I have removed it you too have readded it. So if its a violation its from both sides. I removed the content because it was clearly marked disputed. And that is the sole reason why it was removed every time after it. Besides there are multiple users who want to remove it. And just you who wants to add it. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirate of the High Seas is removing notice served by another user which is related to this dispute.
- Revision as of 20:04, 10 September 2023 Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Declined I'll decline this for now. The page is extended-confirmed protected now and I'd like to see how that works out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree Thanks for it. Was much needed. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Thewikizoomer reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Nominator blocked a week for sockpuppetry)
Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewikizoomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:34, 9 September 2023 Edit Summary: "Preparations were written like a news essay. editors are advised to stick to neutral point of view"
- 12:44, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "refrain from unconstructive edits"
- 12:57, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: n/a
- 15:10, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "unsourced content removed"
- 15:16, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "appropriate citation added"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]
Comments:
This User reported me above, kept leaving multiple warnings on my talkpage, requested page protection and then used false edit summary (see diff #4) to censor and continue edit-warring that too without engaging on the article talkpage. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Appears like retaliatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1174753805&oldid=1174732481) filing. Administrators requested to look through this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Diff link related to the dicussion of removal of unsourced content can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikishovel&diff=1174771606&oldid=1174753993 Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of one week by Firefly for using IP addresses to sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I should add here that I also warned User:Thewikizoomer twice about their blatant edit-warring at the same article today: [23],[24]. Their response: [25] and [26]. Wikishovel (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of one week by Firefly for using IP addresses to sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Diff link related to the dicussion of removal of unsourced content can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikishovel&diff=1174771606&oldid=1174753993 Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Foxbro69 reported by User:Skywatcher68 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Interstate 20 in South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foxbro69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:31, 10 September 2023
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 00:36, 11 September 2023
- Revision as of 00:42, 11 September 2023
- Revision as of 01:55, 11 September 2023
- Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023
- Revision as of 02:02, 11 September 2023
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest revision as of 02:06, 11 September 2023
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Latest revision as of 02:38, 11 September 2023
Comments:
I'm guessing Foxbro69 also edited while logged out to add support for themselves. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- And now we have someone whose very first edit is to support Foxbro69. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The possible socking can be dealt with at SPI or through a checkuser. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Diogenhty reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Declined)
Page: Ashurst Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Diogenhty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ashurst Australia."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Similar actions at Big Six (law firms) also. Not willing to communicate on the user talk page/ edit summary or on the article talk page. New account with prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools. Looks like a sock of someone! Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Declined, two reverts from a new editor over a couple of days (and they have been given no warning concerning edit warring) doesn't rise to the level of actionable edit warring. I don't see anything that jumps out as
prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools
but if you suspect sockpuppetry the correct venue is WP:SPI, not here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Blocked 26 hours)
Page: Jat Muslim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrashLandingNew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [28]
- [29]
- [30]
- [31]
[32]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
- [34]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]
Comments:
User:CrashLandingNew has long history of edit warring at article, going back atleast to March when he blanked the article while accusing me of sockpuppetry, all without any trace of evidence.[36] The user has not also bothered to engage at talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Both user talk pages received the {{GS/Alert}} annotated for South Asian social groups.
- Those analysing this report may wish to remind each editor of their obligations 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Timtrent yes, I kept that in mind and even tried to engage the user at talk page[37][38], but they didn't replied. Thanks for the standard alert though. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Plus there was hardly any content dispute, as User kept removing large parts of article backed with reliable references without any talk page discussion. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but the editor you reported has been given a short, preventative block. There is no need to keep selling this idea. Indeed, it is not always to one's advantage to keep doing so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK, my apologies. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Sutyarashi Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but the editor you reported has been given a short, preventative block. There is no need to keep selling this idea. Indeed, it is not always to one's advantage to keep doing so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Plus there was hardly any content dispute, as User kept removing large parts of article backed with reliable references without any talk page discussion. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Timtrent yes, I kept that in mind and even tried to engage the user at talk page[37][38], but they didn't replied. Thanks for the standard alert though. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Drew1830 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: 2012 Major League Soccer season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drew1830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174857170 by Oknazevad (talk)"
- 02:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174792133 by PeeJay (talk)"
- 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174787184 by PeeJay (talk)"
- 17:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174494820 by PeeJay (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football "/* Disruptive editing on MLS season articles */ Reply"
Comments:
Reverting more than a few editors to add an uncited section in place of a cited list (which, admittedly, does need cleanup but has citations) against project consensus and with no attempt to explain their edits nor engage in civil conversation. This has also happened recently at 2011 Major League Soccer season and previously at other MLS season articles, where some WP:OWN-like behavior has been displayed. An attempt to reach out was made at WT:FOOTY and the response was a personal attack on myself and other editors. SounderBruce 17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- SounderClown started whatever "war" this is by undoing my edits without cause. His whining has no merit. Drew1830 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to make this simple, Drew. You are in the wrong here. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reverts of others. There is a protocol in place where, after being reverted, you use the article discussion pag eto find a consensus for your edits. Do not ever think that edit summaries are efficient in resolving disagreements in editing. They don't. There is no hurry to get the material into the article, and if discussion fails, there is Third Opinion or further escalation. Bypassing that process is an absolute, sure way to get you blocked for a lengthy amount of time. The rules aren't arbitrary; you revert 3 times, you almost always get blocked.
- If none of what I am saying resonates within you, it might be time to think about whether Wikipedia is the place for you. If you can't edit collaboratively, you can't edit here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:PeeJay and User:Drew1830 reported by User:67.149.160.101 (Result: Closed)
Page: 2012 Major League Soccer season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: PeeJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Drew1830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [39] - version before edit warring
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Peejay
- Drew1830
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
- PeeJay
This user has requested not to receive templates
- Drew1830
The user was not notified by me, as I am a third party.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Discussion not initiated by myself as I am a third party to this edit war.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
- User talk:PeeJay#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
- User talk:Drew1830#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
Comments:
This is getting ridiculous. The reporting user seems to have some sort of vendetta against me. User:Drew1830 has been blocked for making disruptive edits. The reverts I made that are listed here were attempts to curb Drew1830's disruption. Can I file some sort of appeal for vexatious reporting by User:67.149.160.101? – PeeJay 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- It takes at least 2 users to edit war. I also note you did not attempt to engage in discussions with Drew and dismissed Drew as a ccontributor outright in an edit summary.
- Edit Summary Diffs:
- 67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- The user's conduct had been reported at WT:FOOTY as being disruptive by User:SounderBruce. Their conduct was clearly disruptive. Of course, at least they made some sort of contribution to the discussion at WT:FOOTY, whereas you have yet to do so at WT:RU regarding the disagreement that precipitated this witch hunt. – PeeJay 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- What are the wikiproject going to do? give a stern telling off and not let them in to their club house?...WT:Footy does not control or own football articles. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- The user's conduct had been reported at WT:FOOTY as being disruptive by User:SounderBruce. Their conduct was clearly disruptive. Of course, at least they made some sort of contribution to the discussion at WT:FOOTY, whereas you have yet to do so at WT:RU regarding the disagreement that precipitated this witch hunt. – PeeJay 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- PeeJay, your behavior was atrocious. You have been editing in Wikipedia for almost two decades, and - after a cursory glance at your lengthy block log - seem to have failed to wrap your head around how edit summaries are not a replacement for actual article page discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. If you're lucky enough to avoid a lengthy block - and there is no reason to suggest you should not be blocked - you better start accepting that you must discuss. If you can't do that, we can certainly see to it that Wikipedia doesn't let you edit here anymore. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Closed "I am a third party". Yeah, right. Posted by an IP that judging by their behaviour, is either Drew1830 or continuing their disruption - look at the number of reverts of PeeJay by then. Not happening. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Bon courage reported by User:Curran919 (Result: )
Page: Biological effects of high-energy visible light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [48]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [49] Sept 11
- [50] Sept 11
- [51] Sept 11
- [52] Sept 6
- [53] Sept 6
- [54] Sept 4
- [55] Aug 28 (later self revert)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: original:[56]; later:[57], also:[58], request for mediation:[59]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]
Comments:
User is reverting anyone else who makes changes and has a clear WP:TE for WP:SKEP. User even asked for content within a pay-walled source to supercede already-reverted source, then when given the content of the paywalled source, decided it did not suit their narrative and found older source that did. User's talk page shows long history of edit warring with similar WP:SKEP articles.Curran919 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- 1 is not a "revert", just normal editing to clear out unsourced content (I've done a lot of work on the article). But even so there's no violation. The rest is just fantasy. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:WakayamaY reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: )
Page: Japan Air Lines Flight 123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WakayamaY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
- 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information.Cite error: There are
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." - Consecutive edits made from 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) to 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
- 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
- 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
- 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
- 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: