Hawkers994 (talk | contribs) Adding new report for EELagoon. (TW) |
|||
Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
:::: What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nellie_Bowles&oldid=841999194 this] version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::: What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nellie_Bowles&oldid=841999194 this] version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment:''' I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Comment:''' I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]], the contested, negative, content offers four sources, one of them obviously useless, since it is, in full: https://www.washingtonpost.com/. I have no way of knowing what, if any, article or opinion piece that may be intended to refer to; it just takes me to the current front page of WaPo. The other three are an article in NYT ''by'' Nelly Bowles, followed by a correction which is quoted in extenso (very oddly so, in relation to its interest, and in relation to [[WP:WEIGHT]]: it amounts to a quarter of the entire article text) in the contested content, and then ''commented on'' by ''The Blaze'', which is consequently the real, a k a secondary, source for this bit. The other bit, the sentence about Jordan Peterson, is sourced exclusively to ''The Daily Wire''. Concerning your comment above on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Daily_Wire this discussion of ''The Daily Wire'' at RSN] that there is "a split of opinion" about its useableness as a source: on account of the divisiveness of the topic of American politics there is always, invariably, going to be "a debate which is drawing a split of opinion", about everything, so that's hardly a useful point to make. The interest of the RSN discussion is to see ''which, and how many, editors are making well-reasoned points'', and I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also, have you actually read the piece in ''The Daily Wire'' that is the source for the Jordan Peterson material? Just asking. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC). |
|||
== [[User:EELagoon]] reported by [[User:Ciiseciise007]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:EELagoon]] reported by [[User:Ciiseciise007]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 14:57, 20 May 2018
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:SGT-Craig reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Common Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SGT-Craig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "CE/BCE corresponds to AD/BC. AD/BC are based upon the time frames revolving around Jesus. Please cite how the system is not based upon this individual."
- 02:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Removed uncited opinionated statements. Riddle me this? What is CE / BCE based off of? If a reader were to ask what would you tell him? Would you try to avoid truth or dance around facts?"
- 19:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC) "Removed uncited opinions. Just b/c a few use it does not constitute mass use. Added back basic of what BCE / CE is founded upon."
- 07:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) "Removed fundamentalist views to make article neutral in its opening. Added information that expands upon why BCE and BC use the same date system. Note to the guy doing war editing. I provided citations which you deleted to push your agenda. If you are going to edit things at least provide citations."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Common Era. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Noting that this is a continuation of an edit war on the same issue by an IP, possibly this editor, and that I haven't taken part in the issue. See also the top discussion. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 10:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The edits in question were substantially reinstated by User:SGT-Craig after expiration of the block. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Continued reverting, blocked another week. --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pragdon is keeping on reverting a change without stating any objections. (Result: Duplicate of ANI post)
About a year ago I raised some objections to a section of the 1980 Turkish coup d'etat. I raised this objection, stated my reasons on talk page becuase the content there was unsupported by the source cited. I Waited for 6 months, no objections were raised to my point. I updated the content finding sources that work and the content was updated accordingly as it is now but this user, Pragdon, is keeping on reverting the change without stating any reason to do so. The best thing I think he raised is Wikipedia's revert and cycle rule, he himself needs to state why my update should be ignored. He reverts it without stating anything, I have presented my case and I can present it again. --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ruhubelent: Post to only one admin board at a time, please. --NeilN talk to me 13:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The complaint has been handled at ANI by User:Swarm with 24-hour blocks of both User:Ruhubelent and User:Pragdon. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:WilliamJE reported by User:Smallchief (Result: No violation)
- Page: Folsom, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:WiliamJE violated the three revert rule with the following series of reverts
- (cur | prev) 09:43, 18 May 2018 WilliamJE (talk | contribs) . . (11,250 bytes) (-179) . . (I just mentioned three good reasons.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
- (cur | prev) 09:23, 18 May 2018 Smallchief (talk | contribs) . . (11,429 bytes) (+179) . . (Undid revision 841776487 by WilliamJE (talk) take it to the discussion pages....no logical reason to delete a mention of this person.) (undo) *(Tag: Undo)
- (cur | prev) 00:12, 18 May 2018 WilliamJE (talk | contribs) . . (11,250 bytes) (-179) . . (Try WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
- (cur | prev) 23:23, 17 May 2018 Smallchief (talk | contribs) . . (11,429 bytes) (+179) . . (Undid revision 841766537 by WilliamJE (talk) no reason whatsoever to delete a locally famous person) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
- (cur | prev) 22:37, 17 May 2018 WilliamJE (talk | contribs) . . (11,250 bytes) (-179) . . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank)
Comment The three reverts of WilliamJE were of an innocuous and referenced entry in the "Notable people" section at the end of the Folsom, New Mexico article: The three reverts made by WilliamJE were of the following:
- Sally J. Rooke (1840–1908) Telephone operator who perished in the 1908 flood "while at her switchboard warning others of their danger."[1]
- ^ Folsom, 1888-1898, p. 34
I see no reason not to mention Ms. rooke in the "Notable people" section. The aforementioned flood was the most important event in the history of Folsom, New Mexico. Ms. Rooke and 17 others died. She is a locally famous person. One could easily find thousands of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles who are less significant than Ms. Rooke.
WilliamJE plays alphabet soup to justify his reverts -- but he violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule and did not, as I suggested, take this issue to the talk page.
My appeal is to common sense and judgement. I seem to recall a wikipedia rule of "do no harm." WilliamJE is doing harm to this article (and perhaps to other articles) by erasing an important and interesting fact.
Thank you for your consideration. Smallchief (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Let's take this one by one-
- I haven't violated 3RR.
- Locally famous doesn't mean they meet WP notability guidelines.
- As for 'One could easily find thousands of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles who are less significant than Ms. Rooke' WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies.
- I'm not playing alphabet soup , but applying WP policies and guidelines. This editor with his edit summary here[1] shows he either fails to comprehend them or will ignore them if they suit him or her. We have a person at best notable for just one event. GNG, LISTPEOPLE, and BLP1E apply.
- Complainant hasn't addressed these but instead files a false 3RR accusation and appeals to common sense and judgment rather than WP policy. There is no excuse for them not to know this as the editor has been around here for 8 years and over 28,000 edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
policy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than take it to the talk page as requested, and would probably easily resolve the problem the roof?, is edit warring (not 3RR). He throws in his edit caption an alphabet soup of references to various policies and essays, but his approach is combative instead of cooperative. He is probably in the right on the content dispute, but his method of operation is bullying rather than cooperative. A very small dose of civility and discussion could easily resolve this problem.Jacona (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- He's not even correct on the content dispute IMO. See Talk:Folsom, New Mexico#Sally Rooke. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- No violation – 3RR was not broken. WilliamJE is at three reverts and Smallchief is at two. Let's hope that neither side will revert again unless an agreement is reached on Talk. Less notable material is removed from articles all the time and this is not considered to be 'harm'. Whether a mention of Sally Rooke belongs in the article depends entirely on editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Dino710 reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: )
Page: Dean Lomax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dino710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: No stable version, new article.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:10, May 16, 2018
- 03:59, May 17, 2018
- 13:48, May 17, 2018
- 12:10, May 18, 2018
- 13:37, May 18, 2018
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]
Comments:
There's been a slow edit war going on at at Dean Lomax. It's creator, Dino710 is a WP:SPA towards Lomax and has a stated intent wanting to use the page to promote Lomax's reasearch[4]. In those diffs, there's also been reinserting the Daily Mail and other poor sources in the edit warring as well as restoring WP:PEACOCK language they originally inserted all while not using the talk page at all. It's pretty clear this editor is WP:NOTHERE and using the page for advocacy in addition to edit warring. The talk page isn't being used even after multiple requests to follow WP:BRD, and undoing the poorly sourced or promotional edits just ends up with a revert again. While we give new editors initial leeway (less so for advocacy SPA's), it is reaching the point that it's near impossible to fix the promotionalism and other issues in their edits without edit warring oneself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- It turns out the page was deleted at AfD, so there shouldn’t by any action needed. This can be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:2404:1a0:1001:16:2971:5369:bd66:4ed7 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: )
Page: Josep Irla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Pasqual Maragall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Lluís Companys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Francesc Macià (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Potentially, José Montilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Josep Tarradellas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2404:1a0:1001:16:2971:5369:bd66:4ed7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Josep Irla
- 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Irla the 3rd president."
- 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838920 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
- 07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841957494 by Impru20 (talk)"
- 07:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Is not about legality, is about history. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior to that there was the General Council and Priest elected by the king. Simple as that, all text refer as them as deputies. If Generalitat is trying to change their history, very well, but this is a open source of knowledge, not a politicians website."
- List of Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia
- 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931."
- Consecutive edits made from 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 05:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931 as its Presidents."
- 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- 05:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "There is only one Generalitat that was established during the Spanish Second Republic, in the middle ages there was a the General Council were religious ecclesiastic councils were in place."
- 07:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841958767 by 114.249.45.51 (talk)"
- 07:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
- 08:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "There is no modern Generalitat. Before the Generalitat, the closest entity was the General Council that was a Commission of Catalan Courts made of delegates, mainly priests, with no effective government power, as the King ruled over the territory."
- Pasqual Maragall
- 18:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Pascual Maragall the 6th president."
- Consecutive edits made from 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
- 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841952923 by 2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7 (talk)"
- 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
- 08:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
- Lluís Companys
- 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià, being Lluís Companys the 2nd president of this instit"
- 06:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838936 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
- 07:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841957542 by Impru20 (talk)"
- 08:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Francesc Macià
- Consecutive edits made from 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) to 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential)
- 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
- 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
- 06:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Francesc Macia was the first President not the 122nd."
- 07:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841956766 by Impru20 (talk)"
- 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Review this article for further information. There were no presidents of Generalitat before 1931, but rather there were ecclesiastics deputies of the General Council. http://www.abc.es/historia/abci-gran-mentira-historica-131-presidentes-generalitat-nuevo-mantra-nacionalismo-catalan-201805160155_noticia.html"
- Consecutive edits made from 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) to 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (potential)
- José Montilla (potential)
- 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being José Montilla the 6th president."
- 05:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838651 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
- 08:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
- Josep Tarradellas (potential)
- 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Tarradellas the 3rd president."
- 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841838789 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
- 08:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC))
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7: Revision history
Comments:
User is very aggressively engaged in articles related to Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia, enforcing edits that go against reliable sources presented to him and trying to impose his own version of reality to these pages (seems like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as seen from here and here). User has kept on this attitude despite being warned from refraining to engage in edit warring and to seek consensus through talk instead, which the user has failed to accomplish. Impru20talk 07:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Just to note, user is also engaging in such a behaviour in the Artur Mas and Carles Puigdemont articles (and may surely extend to further articles as well, as he already went on to edit all Catalan president articles before), though he has not violated 3RR in those yet as I'd rather wait until actions are taken rather than engaging in further edit warring, since it's very likely that further edits from me would be followed by further reverts from this user. Impru20talk 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment User could be a sock of User:14.136.156.23, as seen from their contributions history: here and here, with similar edits as well as edit summaries (with the latter's even commenting out the very same edit summary as posted during their edits in the first's talk page: as seen here. If confirmed, it would mean the user has been using to different accounts to make edits at different articles, which could increase the number of pages affected by the 3RR. I'm proceeding to report this at WP:SPI so an investigation may be opened. Impru20talk 07:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The dispute appears to come from an argument in the Spanish press about the true history of the Generalitat de Catalunya. In my opinion User:impru20 has been giving a good explanation of Wikipedia policy to the IP user at their talk page. Nothing shows that the IP has received consensus to renumber the presidents of the Generalitat. Especially to make multiple changes to different articles. But there have been no more reverts since about 08:00 on 19 May so I'd wait a bit before deciding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User:213.205.241.243 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: )
Page: Jordan Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.205.241.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [5]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
IP edit-warring to version including wording that does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Ke31 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)
- Page
- Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ke31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 23:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842021709 by EkoGraf (talk) SOHR ISNT A SOURCE"
- 23:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842018792 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
- 23:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842018850 by Applodion (talk)"
- 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842001222 by 85.144.61.254 (talk) has no sources to back that 83 turkish soliders died or that sohr is trustworthy"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) to 14:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "sohr isnt a source they have not even a single observer on the ground plus the claim of 83 killed turkish soliders is ridiculous"
- 14:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "http://www.karar.com/guncel-haberler/afrin-harekatinda-kac-sehit-var-732833#http://www.posta.com.tr/afrin-de-sehit-sayisi-kac-oldu-zeytin-dali-harekati-67-gun-1381052https://www.rt.com/news/317813-sohr-visit-syria-long/https://www.rt.com/news/383020-germany-doubts-syrian-observatory-report/"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Turkish military operation in Afrin. (TW★TW)"
- Blanking 1RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Relentless edit-warring. Blanks talkpage. Got also 1-R warning. Dr. K. 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Two warnings about edit warring and a notice that blanking is deemed as acknowledgment, all blanked without discussion. User has thus demonstrated intent to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof & User:192.207.62.209 reported by User:Netoholic (Result: No violation)
Page: Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 192.207.62.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19 May 2018 history of the article showing back and forth (I'll add individual diffs if requested)
- 192.207.62.209 made a revert at 05:49. They then make a revert at 13:27, and then a more extensive series of edit (ending at 13:59), all of which was reverted. They then revert back 9 more times - a total of 11 reverts today
- NorthBySouthBaranof reverted a different IP at 05:19. He then reverts this IP at 14:19, and then exchanges reverts with this IP another 9 times - a total of 11 reverts today.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 192.207.62.209 No warning on this incident to NorthBySouthBaranof. Found this edit war only after page was protected.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nellie Bowles#Daily Wire
Comments:
While WP:BLPREMOVE is standard practice, the IPs longer edit is sourced (though its of debatable weight) and not so egregious as to warrant such an extreme edit war between these two editors. after two reverts, 14:21 NorthBySouthBaranof contacted WP:RFPP. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:38, he posted to WP:AIV. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:42, NorthBySouthBaranof contacted User:Doug Weller directly to ask for page protection. Even after this contact, NorthBySouthBaranof reverted the page 5 more times. The page is protected currently, but the editor actions must be looked at here. NorthBySouthBaranof particularly is an experienced editor and should have stopped reverting FAR earlier, sought help at appropriate forums, and then WAITED for help rather than continuing to war. If found to be not "obvious vandalism", then all of the reverts today by NorthBySouthBaranof were a misuse of his WP:Rollback rights. --Netoholic @ 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The edit contained BLP-violating negative claims about the article subject sourced to partisan blogs, which are unacceptable per BLP (neither Glenn Beck's blog, nor Ben Shapiro's blog, are considered reliable sources per consensus at WP:RSN), and I repeatedly attempted to inform the editor in question (who is a likely sock, per the discussion on @Doug Weller:'s talk page) of that fact, to no avail. Moreover, this has been stale for something like 15 hours, because Doug Weller stepped in to protect the page and prevent the reinsertion of the material, and the anonymous IP editor has since disappeared into the aether.
- The reporting editor had zero prior involvement in the issue and made no attempt to take part in the talk page discussion 15 hours ago. They also ignore the fact that I did report the issue at the appropriate vandalism noticeboard, requested semi-protection to prevent the material from being reinserted and directly contacted an administrator to intervene. Netoholic is, to be charitable, not telling the truth when they falsely assert that I did not seek help at appropriate forums. I believe this is a bad-faith report prompted by Netoholic's disagreement with me on several other pages, notably Liberal bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Our interaction is only what led me to notice your recent contribs and this recent string of reverts. The situation is not stale because your conduct has raised the concerns I've given above and relate to your rollback rights which were used during it - even if one were to assume this was obvious vandalism (which is in doubt). You definitely contacted several venues for help, but you also definitely kept rollbacking without waiting for an outcome from those venues. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have to wait for an outcome from those venues when the material clearly and unambiguously violates BLP, as the material in question does. Partisan blogs are not acceptable sources for claims about living people, and such derogatory material must be removed from the encyclopedia with all due speed. That is not only permitted by express policy provisions, it is our responsibility as editors to do so in order to protect living people.
- I suspect that if I had repeatedly removed from our Donald Trump article a statement that "Trump is traitorously colluding with the Russians to subvert the American government" sourced to DemocraticUnderground or DailyKos and persistently inserted by an anonymous IP, you would not have filed a report on such a removal. Because you politically support Donald Trump, and you don't politically support Nellie Bowles. Well, would you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Our interaction is only what led me to notice your recent contribs and this recent string of reverts. The situation is not stale because your conduct has raised the concerns I've given above and relate to your rollback rights which were used during it - even if one were to assume this was obvious vandalism (which is in doubt). You definitely contacted several venues for help, but you also definitely kept rollbacking without waiting for an outcome from those venues. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The IPs you refer to as inserting the material were all blocked by NeilN as block-evading sockpuppets. [15] [16] It is basic policy that any edits made by blocked users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I agree entirely with NorthBySouthBaranof. Also note this 3RR warning[17] given at 4:55 to him after one set of reverts at Passing on the Right, an article Netoholic created, and the fact that Netoholic didn't give User:Tryptofish a warning despite him having made 2 sets of reverts. This is purely an attempt to get an editor that he disagrees with politically blocked. Doug Weller talk 05:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- What NorthBySouth neglected to disclose is that he reverted The New York Times TEN TIMES within 30 minutes. If you're not going to block for edit warring over The New York Times why do we even have this noticeboard?.– Lionel(talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is disingenuous in the extreme to point to a single source in the edit and ignore the two unacceptable sources, the unsourced POV inference and the repetition of personal attacks sourced solely to partisan blogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- To editor Doug Weller: - I could just as easily claim that you failed to take action on NorthBySouthBaranof because he is someone you politically agree with. I could also say you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS and being dismissive of this report because you believe that you politically disagree with me. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't explained how my removal of
libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material
inserted into a BLP by an anonymous editor without discussion is in any way a violation of any policy, given that the Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly asks editors to take action against such material with all due speed. Are you arguing that Glenn Beck's blog and Ben Shapiro's blog are reliable sources? If so, this is the wrong place to do that, because the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is over that way. If you agree that they are unacceptable sources (just as Markos Moulitsas' blog would not be an acceptable source for something about Donald Trump) then what you are arguing is that it's more important to placate anonymous webhost-using sockpuppets than it is to protect the living people whose lives are chronicled in Wikipedia from being depicted unfairly or in a biased manner. And if that's your argument, I submit that you lost that argument when the Seigenthaler incident happened. If you want to ignore BLP, you're on the wrong project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)- I don't see The Blaze or The Daily Wire listed on Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. They seem to be partisan, but they are not "blogs". This is not obvious vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Literally at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard right now is an extensive discussion of why The Daily Wire is unacceptable. A search of The Blaze on RSN similarly finds consensus that it's unacceptable for claims of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- NorthBySouth: you can't edit war to delete reliably sourced content and try to claim BLP. If you don't like a conservative source and you think you can claom BLP then so be it. But if you remove THE NEW YORK TIMES because you're too too busy to separate the sources then you need to be blocked for edit warring. The New York Times is not a BLP violation and as an experienced editor you know this. – Lionel(talk) 06:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a debate which is drawing a split of opinion is evidence of non-obvious vandalism. Misguided edit, sure. Rollback especially needs to be done with great care and I don't think you have the ability to judge its use appropriately. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also per WP:3RRNO the only exemption to surpass 3RR is for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." That a writer was criticized for their piece from an opinion piece from a normally non-reliable source is in no way libelous, biased, or contentious, though whether the WEIGHT of inclusion is appropriate or not is a question to be asked, but that's definitely outside 3RR exemptions. --Masem (t) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's nonsense; the material in question stated that the article subject was responsible for "severe misrepresentation of the views of the subject of the article" — that is a claim of fact which is not supported by reliable sources. The material is inherently negative and poorly-sourced and was disputed by multiple editors. It 100% falls under both the letter and spirit of the exemption. The anonymous IP — believed to be an open-proxy sockpuppet per @PlyrStar93: — attempted to edit-war the material into the article without consensus. They violated 3RR by reinserting it, and furthermore, the material was originally inserted by two block-evading sockpuppets per @NeilN:'s blocks. To block an editor for reverting BLP-violating material inserted by block-evading sockpuppets is absurdist nonsense. It is basic policy that edits made by block-evading users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also per WP:3RRNO the only exemption to surpass 3RR is for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." That a writer was criticized for their piece from an opinion piece from a normally non-reliable source is in no way libelous, biased, or contentious, though whether the WEIGHT of inclusion is appropriate or not is a question to be asked, but that's definitely outside 3RR exemptions. --Masem (t) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Literally at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard right now is an extensive discussion of why The Daily Wire is unacceptable. A search of The Blaze on RSN similarly finds consensus that it's unacceptable for claims of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see The Blaze or The Daily Wire listed on Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. They seem to be partisan, but they are not "blogs". This is not obvious vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't explained how my removal of
- What NorthBySouth neglected to disclose is that he reverted The New York Times TEN TIMES within 30 minutes. If you're not going to block for edit warring over The New York Times why do we even have this noticeboard?.– Lionel(talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I went out to walk my dog immediately after posting. What I failed to note was that what Netoholic was editwarring with Tryptofish over was a pov statement in the lead.[18][19] NorthBySouth's series of two edits there, that he got warned for, was another revert of clearly pov wording. The problem I see with Netoholic is not that he is conservative but that his politics lead him to violations of NPOV in his edits. His 3RR notice for one series of edits is what led me to the conclusion this report was politically motivated in bringing this here on an article he hasn't edited. As for the BLP issue, I agree on the sources being a problem in a BLP article. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I take great offense to you claiming to know anything about my political ideology and even greater offense to you implying it has anything to do with this report. I took action to report something I happened to see tangentially. You, on the other hand, had first-hand knowledge of this event and did not bring up this notice. You allowed yourself to be canvassed into action by someone who seems to well-aware that you would likely support his political viewpoint, and continue to turn a blind eye to the independent actions of NorthBySouth. Worse yet, you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS - if you believe the conduct of me or Tryptofish is inappropriate, take it to the appropriate venue. You're talking about edits to a totally unrelated article which happened hours after THIS edit war and about two people uninvolved with the article THIS 3RR notice is about.-- Netoholic @ 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I forgot that User:PlyrStar93 posted to my talk page pointing out that the IP in question is a webhost proxy and probably a sock. The IPv4 and IPv6[20] addresses are blocked. I'm going to set the article to semi, I'm not sure why I hit full. See also Talk:Nellie Bowles where user:Tomwsulcer agreed with NorthBySouth as did User:Johnuniq. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- No violation. Reverting BLP violations by IP's (who are highly likely to be registered editors editing logged out) does not violate our policies. Note: Since Doug Weller has indicated an intention, above, to lower the article protection to semi, I've done that. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bishonen, would you please elaborate on why you believe these edits were a BLP violation? You state it as a matter of fact. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I count four editors at Talk:Nellie Bowles saying that the IP's edits were a BLP problem and no one, other than a single comment by the open-proxy IP, disagreeing. Yet there is a lot of interest in getting a sanction from this report. Why is that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen this version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I count four editors at Talk:Nellie Bowles saying that the IP's edits were a BLP problem and no one, other than a single comment by the open-proxy IP, disagreeing. Yet there is a lot of interest in getting a sanction from this report. Why is that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bishonen, would you please elaborate on why you believe these edits were a BLP violation? You state it as a matter of fact. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --NeilN talk to me 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Netoholic, the contested, negative, content offers four sources, one of them obviously useless, since it is, in full: https://www.washingtonpost.com/. I have no way of knowing what, if any, article or opinion piece that may be intended to refer to; it just takes me to the current front page of WaPo. The other three are an article in NYT by Nelly Bowles, followed by a correction which is quoted in extenso (very oddly so, in relation to its interest, and in relation to WP:WEIGHT: it amounts to a quarter of the entire article text) in the contested content, and then commented on by The Blaze, which is consequently the real, a k a secondary, source for this bit. The other bit, the sentence about Jordan Peterson, is sourced exclusively to The Daily Wire. Concerning your comment above on this discussion of The Daily Wire at RSN that there is "a split of opinion" about its useableness as a source: on account of the divisiveness of the topic of American politics there is always, invariably, going to be "a debate which is drawing a split of opinion", about everything, so that's hardly a useful point to make. The interest of the RSN discussion is to see which, and how many, editors are making well-reasoned points, and I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also, have you actually read the piece in The Daily Wire that is the source for the Jordan Peterson material? Just asking. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: )
- Page
- Adhi'adeye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- EELagoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "restoring sourced edit"
- 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "citing source again"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- 08:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "citing source; removing unsourced"
- 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "disputed town"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Constant editing way over 3RR Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: )
- Page
- Aynabo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- EELagoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "restoring sourced edit"
- 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "adding another ref"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 08:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "reverting to source again"
- 08:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "image"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Over 3RR vandalism Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: )
- Page
- Hadaftimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- EELagoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "removing sourced content"
- 13:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "quit edit warring; there's a source provided"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC) to 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "ref added"
- 13:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "not cited; can't find sources"
- 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "notes"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
- 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments: