Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 481: | Line 481: | ||
:You still haven't been able to provide any source for any of my reverts breaking any rule as you love to claim everywhere. — [[User:CuriousGolden|<b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b>]] <b style="solid black"> [[User talk:CuriousGolden|(talk·]][[Special:Contribs/CuriousGolden|contrib)]] </b> 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
:You still haven't been able to provide any source for any of my reverts breaking any rule as you love to claim everywhere. — [[User:CuriousGolden|<b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b>]] <b style="solid black"> [[User talk:CuriousGolden|(talk·]][[Special:Contribs/CuriousGolden|contrib)]] </b> 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Result:''' To avoid a block, [[User:CuriousGolden]] has agreed to stay away from the [[2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]] article and its talk page for two weeks. I hope you will also refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places during that time. You were previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CuriousGolden&oldid=951117861 alerted] to the [[WP:ARBAA2]] sanctions back in April. I hope that all the Nagorno-Karabakh editors will keep those sanctions in mind. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
:*'''Result:''' To avoid a block, [[User:CuriousGolden]] has agreed to stay away from the [[2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]] article and its talk page for two weeks. I hope you will also refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places during that time. You were previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CuriousGolden&oldid=951117861 alerted] to the [[WP:ARBAA2]] sanctions back in April. I hope that all the Nagorno-Karabakh editors will keep those sanctions in mind. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: {{u|EdJohnston}} I hope this includes articles related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as well, where many reverts were done by the user, such as, [[2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks]], [[2020 bombardment of Stepanakert]], [[Timeline of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]] and others. I would appreciate seeing admins in the article [[2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict]] and other articles connected to this ongoing conflict, especially on the Talk pages. Sincerely, [[User:Գարիկ Ավագյան|Գարիկ Ավագյան]] ([[User talk:Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Vallee01]] reported by [[User:Sangdeboeuf]] (Result: Page full protected) == |
== [[User:Vallee01]] reported by [[User:Sangdeboeuf]] (Result: Page full protected) == |
Revision as of 19:50, 29 October 2020
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
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. |
|
Edit warring on multiple articles by an anonym (Result: Both IP editors warned)
Hello, I am new here. I would like to bring to your attention that an anonymous editor constantly reverts my good faith edits on various articles. He had accused me of disruptive editing, although, what I mostly did was changing a dead link here, adding authors here, and removed multiple periods here. He also does some disruptive edits here, here and a complete bizarre edit here.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above editor is stripping all spaces from the Infoboxes of articles he edits for no reason. His edits are disruptive. See Template:Infobox film, there is no good reason not to keep the same layout, there is no excuse for stripping out all the spaces. I have reverted his disruptive edits. I have made good faith edits to keep his constructive changes such as adding archive URLs. See also Help:List, there's no reason for stripping spaces from lists either. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- He also has some strange habits. He changes citation formatting to this |author=[[Roger Ebert|Ebert, Roger]]| instead of using the citation parameters first and last parameters and author-link, like this |last=Ebert |first=Roger |author-link .[1] (It is a small difference but using first and last is semantically better. I wouldn't criticize someone for using author when adding a reference but deliberate changing a reference back to use author instead of first/last and author-link is not an improvement.) Some of his also edits removed templates from Infoboxes replacing them with plaintext dates, a minor problem but not an improvement.[2] He also actively ignores WP:LINEBREAK.
- I don't know what he finds bizarre about my edit to that film article[3] I tidied the Infobox formatting. I tidied the lists. Instead created various subsections, using headings as recommended by WP:MOSFILM instead of putting unrelated information all under one mixed up heading. Also the article already included a Home media section about the VHS further down, it was redundant to include it twice.
- I warned 170.135.176.108 that his edits were disruptive, but maybe I could have made my warning clearer but him turning around and accusing me of vandalism is unexpected. Stripping spaces from articles is pointless, readability is the main reason but there are technical reasons too, Wikipedia is compressed in various ways, you gain nothing by stripping spaces out, that the compression algorithms wont do better. I ask him again to stop making disruptive edits. Some of his edits are constructive, best of luck. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- No he did not! He undid changes on this article and demanded that I should archived urls instead of changing them. The thing is, is that new url is shorter, and it shows the same content, so I don't know why he insists on reverting.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I too warned the above editor here, indicating that edit warring over spaces is pointless and he gets nothing by adding them.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- By the time I reverted that swimmer article I had seen the pattern of disruptive edits, in that case I did not make the effort to keep any good parts of the edit, but you could improve the links without stripping all the spaces out of the Infobox.
- You might personally think spaces are pointless, but why do you think the examples provided by the Template:Infobox film do things that way? Why do you think it is a good idea not to follow the example of the documentation? Why are you actively determined to strip out spaces, what makes you think that improves articles in any way?
- I find his edits persistently disruptive and a minor collection of annoyances so I provided a gentle warning on his talk page. He responded by accusing me of vandalism. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Note to administrators please note that Special:Contributions/170.135.176.108 and Special:Contributions/170.135.241.45 IP addresses are both registered to the same group: US Bancorp. They seem to be two like minded editors working together. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I came here to archive dead links, authors, dates, and do good stuff. Other editors from US Bank were vandals, I am at least trying to add something useful, but of course, an anonym won't allow it. He thinks he owns the article or something. The examples in the Template:Infobox film are default settings, and we can change them however we like. I'm determined to strip spaces because most do not have them, and it is pointless to edit an article for that reason alone. So, with that said, you are being disruptive, not me.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- And now look: he accuses me of inserting "unnecessary abbreviations". I didn't insert anything.:(--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- (I did not "accuse" you of anything, but when you reverted my edit you also restored an unnecessary abbreviation which unfortunately many older film articles use, because people lazily copied the runtimes directly from IMDB.)
- I have already agreed not all your edits are disruptive. I ask you to stop and think about stripping spaces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. I urge you to look at the help documentation and the templates documentation and the recommendations of guidelines such as WP:LINEBREAK. I'm not asking to add spaces, but I am asking you to leave well enough alone and not deliberately remove spaces from articles.
- If as you say yourself, you are "determined to strip spaces" and admit you have no intention of abiding by the examples of the documentation I would ask the administrators to put you on a temporary block to give you some time to think over that decision. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be occurring across multiple pages. The filer (170.135.241.45) has noted reverts of their edits by the filee (109.76.200.104) on the following pages:
- Mike Kenny (swimmer) (3RR hasn't been violated)
- Milk Money (film) (3RR hasn't been violated, though the filer has self-reverted at one point)
- Suad Nasr (3RR hasn't been violated)
- University of Cologne (3RR hasn't been violated)
- Noni juice (3RR hasn't been violated)
- Where the Boys Are '84 (3RR hasn't been violated)
With how this issue is spread across multiple pages I think WP:HOUNDING can be suspected beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the content being reverted, I strongly recommend both the filer and filee read MOS:STYLEVAR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will be out until Monday, can we discuss it then? It it OK not to edit war until Monday anonym? Thanks.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- This editor did not have to escalate this and accuse me of vandalism. This editor did not even stop during this discussion and continued to strip spaces from articles.[4][5] He has clearly stated that he has no intention of changing his behavior. I maintain my request that this editor (and his friend) be blocked temporarily. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to present my point of view on this. 170.135.176.108 started later with Mike Kenny (swimmer), but I started from the film article Milk_Money. I usually edit film articles, and removed user ratings from Amazon and IMDB that are not allowed because of they are WP:USERGENERATED and WP:UNRELIABLE.[6] Shortly after 170.135.241.45 (who I will refer to as BankcorpUser45) changed the article with the edit summary "Authors, page and clean-up." [7] where he stripped all the spacing from the infobox and lists, (ignoring the example of Template:Infobox film, and Help:List) and in citations replaced first and last parameters with the author field, containing a comma and wiki links (which isn't so bad but leaving first last and adding author-link would have been better). (It isn't clear why he removed the title from the reference to San Jose Mercury News either.) It doesn't help that the editor was declaring his forcing of his preferred personal style (of no spaces) as "clean-up". So I reverted those changes and fixed a link while I was at it.[8] (Later he did not check before reverting and carelessly removed the URL I added for Janet Maslin.[9])
I then made an effort to see if this was a pattern of edits, and see if I needed to correct related problems on multiple articles, particularly film articles. A pattern of edits was evident, (some bad, some good, some sloppy). I can understand how some editors might think removing unused parameters from Infoboxes might seem helpful but when an film article is only Start class we should for example be working to try and find budget information for that film, not removing the empty field entirely. Stripping out spaces on a very stable Good Article or Featured article is less of a problem because (at least in theory) there is less need for anyone to read the markup to make changes and fixes, but on the kinds of lower quality articles Bankcorp45 and Bankcorp108 have been editing stripping spaces just makes the markup less readable for the next editor who might be trying to improve the article, and removing unused parameters from the Infobox discourages editors from actually filling in the blanks. I thought the pattern of edits were a little naive and aggressive and wished they could make the obviously good archive fixes without all the unnecessary stripping of spaces, and slightly odd reformatting of author fields.
At first I didn't notice that pattern of edits came from both 170.135.241.45 and 170.135.176.108 (Bankcorp108), and gradually realized it was most likely two editors working together. I tried to fix some more of the articles, I warned Bankcorp45 that his edits were not constructive. I made a note on Bankcorp108's page asking him to please follow the recommended formatting of WP:LINEBREAK. Not following the all guidelines or an established style when you are adding to an article is one thing, but actively changing things away from what the guidelines recommend is disruptive.
The response was to cry foul, accuse me of vandalism. They didn't consider my recommendations at all, they didn't politely disagree, Bankcorp108 instead escalated to accusations of vandalism. (I've worked with people like him, goofing off at work editing Wikipedia but immediately cries foul when he thinks others aren't playing by the rules.) They have reverted my edits with little consideration. As you can see above Bankcorp108 has clearly stated that he is determined to continue to strip spaces from articles, even though this isn't in keeping with the examples provided by the documentation, or any existing style in an article. And after rushing to accuse me of vandalism Bankcorp108 then declares he is gone for the weekend! On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time. I'd like them to reconsider their editing behavior, but I don't think they will even recognize that their pattern of editing is aggressive (and rushing to accuse other editors of vandalism is certainly aggressive) without some kind of of short term block as a warning. (For convenience feel free to refer to me as 109 for short). I will continue to check this thread over the next few days. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I learned about WP:BOOMERANG (while checking out other parts of this page). Interesting that it happens often enough to have a name.
- I do not like being called a vandal, I hope this can be resolved soon, and would appreciate clarification from administrators on this matter. (I will check again at some point on Monday.) -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- And I don't like being called a disruptive editor.
- Now, I wasted 4 hours of my precious life reverting nonsensical edits by 109. I assumed that I will come here, edit a few articles by adding reception and other stuff (which you all can do too, but non chooses, everybody have something else to do and someone else to blame for their shortcomings). As for your comment:
On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time.
- So you know more about my job then I would know about my own mother???!!! Let me guess, non of you are employed, so you can judge anybody?
- Also, why are you crying foul? I can't edit Wikipedia on my own time? I need to play according to what you like and what you don't like? Are you my employer? Yes, I was gone for the weekend, so what? How often do anybody of you go on Wikibreaks? How many of you have something else to do besides edit warring here? Do you have other hobbies? Families? I wish I could have ended this debacle sooner, but unfortunately, the site won't allow me to edit anything from my phone. I also have no obligation to disclose why I edit Wikipedia from work, but OK. Have anybody heard of 15-minute breaks? So, during those time, by law, I can do whatever, and, if I choose to edit Wikipedia, there is no code that will prohibit me from doing that. I'm also a manager of this organization, and, as long as no employees are needing anything, I can edit this thing 24/7. Again, there is no code against that either, nor in Wikipedia, nor in the organization's policies.
- Speaking of policies, have 109 read on WP:IAR? This policy explains why your WP:HOUNDING of my edits is not welcome here. I can ignore your edits as long as you will ignore mine.:) Also, please read on WP:Harassment. While we are not there yet, hounding of someone's edits is a precursor to that.
- As for my sloppy editing, how can edit not sloppy if I am being hounded? I seen it.
- And, my note to admins: If editor 109 have a right to question legitimacy of my IP accounts, keep in my mind that there are numerous of editors here under this IP. This leads to suspicion that user 109 is also, either edits from both IPs (which are registered to Vodafone), or is a sockpuppet of user:109.77.151.81 (formerly known as Mieszko 8). Note: In order for an IP to be considered a sockpuppet, the editing patterns and topics are not required to be the same. The IP could have just awoken from a "slumber" and decided to attack a different topic, using hounding tactic instead. I hope that the admins will look into that matter too and make a wise decision.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Admins? Still hoping for answers and clarification here.
- Again Bankcorp108/Bankcorp45 didn't have to escalate this by accusing me of vandalism. He could revert and disagree without needing to call me a vandal in his edit summaries. He could try WP:BRD. (I do not have a problem with him using different IP addresses, but it wasn't clear if it was one person or two friends with the same editing habits.)
- He thinks he was being hounded, but doesn't accept that it might be that he has been making lots of mistakes, and that not following the examples of the templates and not following various guidelines might be a bad thing, disruptive even. If he looks again at WP:STYLEVAR, it tells us both to leave well enough alone, and that includes his stripping out spaces from Infoboxes (also replacing first and last with author[10] is also the kind of thing STLYEVAR is trying to tell editors not to do). He thinks WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply to the changes he is making, only to other editors.
- I do not like how he removes spaces but he's making plenty of other mistakes too that his stripping of spaces makes more difficult to see. Removing URLs does not improve an article.[11] When you add references to The New York Times include the URL too so other editors can easily WP:VERIFY and read the article. Removing (birth) date templates not good either.[12] (He removed an Amazon.com URL[13] but didn't replace it with a better reference, until a much later edit. WP:RSPSOURCES does say Amazon.com links can be used sometimes, and a it is still better than no reference at all.) Other edits aren't wrong, they just seem unhelpful[14] and don't improve the article.
- I welcome comments from admins. I choose to edit anonymously, and as far as I know I'm following the rules, but there are a whole lot of rules, and we all make mistakes sometimes. But we don't all accuse people of vandalism when our edits get reverted. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Under different IPs, 109.76.130.104 has received warnings for edit warring, not using sources, unconstructive editing, and removing maintenance templates (and those are what I could find). Their editing under different IPs may not be WP:ILLEGIT, but it's hard not to be suspicious of their reasons for doing so, especially since they cited a humorous essay in response to a suggestion to register as a user. KyleJoantalk 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- People throw those warnings like candies at Halloween, most were spurious. I responded to KyleJoan at length already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.79.184.96 and when people raise concerns I DISCUSS on the relevant article talk pages (but not usually on user talk pages), and again here I have tried to discuss and learn more.
- KyleJoan accused me of being a sock puppet and was told I was not. I think it is because KyleJoan is very protective of the Charlies Angels article, but it could be something else. You don't need to like me but your suspicions are unfounded. Take a look at the diffs, judge the edits not the user. Tell me you'd be okay with Bankcorp108 stripping spaces or removing URLs from any of the pages you protect. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Edit warring is a conduct policy, therefore, it is your conduct that's under scrutiny and not the content you added/removed. I'm merely presenting a theory about your reasoning for editing
anonymously
, as you put it, which is to give yourself a clean slate every few weeks or so to avoid blocks since registered users won't see past warnings on your previous IP addresses' talk pages. KyleJoantalk 04:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)- Maybe I shouldn't have called you a vandal, but a hounder, you are. Admit it. My "unhelpful edit here does follow a policy, that is WP:EXTERNALLINK which clearly says that it "shouldn't be a collection of external links". For a stub, one external link is enough. There is nothing illegit about using an IP over a username but there is a problem why you are using it and how. For example, I use my IP to add sources to the content, there is nothing wrong about it. You, on the other hand, use it to stalk me, which is strange because I personally didn't do anything to you. Some articles do come stripped of spaces and as I see, not many editors really care. Edit warring over it is another matter. As for my errors, I would like to apologize, but knowing that 109 will come back, revert, and accuse me of being disruptive, or revert properly archived sources which are put there so that the links can be verified causes me to do all sort of errors. Please, stop following me around as I am here only to cause disruption. If you want to fight vandalism go to other articles/topics. I bet our Covid-19 articles are vandalized more then anything else now. Go do something useful there. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, our anonym is being impatient because admins don't respond to his tantrums. But what he doesn't get is that admins are human beings, they are busy, and I bet many just ignore such impatient editors. You don't own Wikipedia. Nobody owns it, so stop demanding quick resolution, blocks, etc. You are not in charge here. If I would have been your manager, I probably would sent you home without a check for that day. Nobody likes annoying editors/employees who are gathering to cry about their rights as an editor. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- @KyleJoan: (Now, I don't who will respond first Kyle or Joan? :)), thanks for mentioning on the anonyms' possibly previous unconstructive activities. Should I file an SPI report? Because, how I see it, is that a possible sock have changed tactics. I think, those edits alone (of following users and reverting archived sources) worth an investigation.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- And, after looking at this I can see who 109 really is.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. See you all in couple of days.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- If Bankcorp108 believes his deleting all those External links is in accordance with WP:EXTERNALLINK it would be better if he mentioned WP:EXTERNALLINK or WP:EL or WP:ELDUP in his edit summary. I think he is again misinterpreting the policies, 5 External links is not that many, and I think that delete was indiscriminate. The links to the AFI and particularly the link to Internet Archive which provides a public domain link to the whole film should not have been deleted.
- I'm not the one who escalated this. Bankcorp108 is trying to suggest that my checking a few of his edits is somehow causing him to make more errors than he was already making. So I reverted an edit that wasn't entirely bad (it archive a link) and he cries foul, but when I added an URL to a New York Times reference he reverted it.[15] (It make sense little sense why anyone would add new references to the NYT without including an URL in the first place, but I've seen other editors do that recently too.)
- You can file an SPI but you'd be wasting the admins time same as when KyleJoan did it. I don't pretend to be someone I'm not, I edit anonymously, I use the IP address randomly assigned to me.
- The top of this board says "Sections older than 48 hours are archived" so I expected admins response time would be related to that but it seems response time is much longer. -- 109.78.193.104 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Edit warring is a conduct policy, therefore, it is your conduct that's under scrutiny and not the content you added/removed. I'm merely presenting a theory about your reasoning for editing
- Result: Both User:170.135.176.108 and User:109.78.193.104 are warned. If I notice either of you reverting one of the other's edits on any article in the next thirty days you are risking a block, unless you have first obtained a consensus for your change on the article talk page. The methods of reaching consensus are well known and you are expected to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:71.234.178.78, User:2601:180:8200:63D0:CC35:26E9:A53F:19ED and User:2601:180:8200:63D0:144A:184F:107F:9767 (sock) reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Life Support (Madison Beer album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 71.234.178.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:180:8200:63D0:CC35:26E9:A53F:19ED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:180:8200:63D0:144A:184F:107F:9767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [17]
- [18]
- [19]
- [20] (same ones used in SPI as they are all from the same "user" and all from today)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] (I did it on the sockmaster's page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
Comments:
They are a suspected sock, hence the three IPs in the title. All these users are from the same house with the same zip code in the same city, please look at the SPI against them. Since not all of the diffs are from the same IP, it isn’t an obvious 3RR violation, but I have rock hard evidence that it is. Please note that this user was also reported ten days ago for the same behaviour (granted I got blocked as well). I will still warn all three IPs mentioned above. Please also note that I did not break the 3RR and should not be punished. All the best, D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 10:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Various IPs of the same user reported by User:Julius Senegal (Result: Page protected)
Page: Clemens Arvay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.225.35.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.126.142.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985455011
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:mobileDiff/985597826
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985520498
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985514948
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985495526
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See disk
Comments:
A CU due to socketpupperty is running in German Wiki, one user has been already perma banned.
I would semi protect the article in order to geht rid of those IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs)
- Yeah, I agree, and I'd do it but I've already trimmed the article a bit. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eldhorajan92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]
Comments:
I've argued on the basis of the evidence I've got, so it doesn't matter(refer talk page and reference article). They object to false information and do not have the evidence to say what they say! Eldhose Talk 04:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is impossible to discuss with this user because their English is so poor. I haven't responded on my talk page or the article's because I can't even tell what their issue is. Sourced information was removed as fake and then re-added with a different source. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- What do you understand? Are you the evidence I gave you? Or are it the mistakes I missed? (Refer talk page of Article). I have added the history of the Magdalene Church, as well as the history of the Church, according to the official constitution of the Church, and on the basis of books. I didn't add anything without proof! Eldhose Talk 05:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I refused to make it the same because the discussion was going on here. Eldhose Talk 02:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're fighting without proof, so I had to do this. Eldhose Talk 06:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:220.238.160.97 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: Semi)
Page: Malek Fahd Islamic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 220.238.160.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: original version and partially modified, current preferred, version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- It's probably easiest to see by just looking at the page history.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: disruptive editing block, unblock decline, specific edit warring warning and further explanation
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my message on the talk page, see also this and this on the IP's talk page.
Comments:
It seems pretty clear that the IP has no intention of following normal editing processes even after their last 31 hour block but instead is regularly coming back to check that their preferred version remains the current version. While they've sometimes been willing to make comments (1 and 2) they have not been willing to engage in discussion about actual issue just picking side elements of it. Their other edits (e.g. 1 and 2, one is a joint edit with 120.151.60.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which I'm confident is the same person) may suggest that they are pushing a particular POV). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected 3 months. IP editors have been warring to add material to the article about people who they claim are graduates of the school who are now Islamic radicals. This addition seems to violate WP:SYN. It is of questionable relevance to the school's own article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Koncorde (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Sunderland A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985631984 by Koncorde (talk)"Informed"? You don't get to "inform" - you get to debate, discuss, and reach a consensus. You can't have a two line section, there's need for more information about the charity."
- 00:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985618647 by Koncorde (talk)Again, those things belong to the article as they give significant info about the period and what they did. Stop edit warring."
- Consecutive edits made from 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) to 22:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985442999 by Koncorde (talk)No, there was no "discussion," it was you edit warring and bullying your view onto the article."
- 22:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985442770 by Koncorde (talk)It's important information. All you do is edit war, and think that because you're an admin you can force your view. Nah."
- 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) no edit summary
- 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) no edit summary
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38] [39]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Historic discussions existed about the lack of consensus [40] [41] [42]
Just for clarity, I did ask Rambling man to comment last night as he was directly involved last year both at Sunderland AFC and other articles but could have gone to any WP:FOOTBALL editor as nobody has supported his position.[43][44][45]
Comments:
Item 1: No warning tags put out as user still has 3 existing October 2020 Edit Warring sections on his page, and has just returned from a 48 hour ban for edit warring at List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Maxim continued that edit war by returning immediately after an SPA IP address was reverted by myself and subsequently Ed Johnston put PP on the page to continue his edit warring behaviour to reinsert not only all the content on the talk page that concerns had been raised about, but also content I removed as it was a longstanding COPYVIO violation.
Item 2: Maxim tried to insert the same content at Sunderland last year, in the process raising an Edit War report against myself that saw him warned as an outcome. In between that incident and around a few months ago, he re-inserted the content in an attempt to circumvent consensus. A few days ago I reverted the changes pursuant to what he was told by Ed Johnston here
I have tried working with Maxim, and you can see his passion for certain subjects - but he is unable to work dispassionately and see's any criticism as an attack (per battleground mentality), and shows absolutely no ability to either use reliable sources appropriately, summarise sources accurately, etc. There is a fundamental issue here of WP:Competence at least partially informed about the way he goes about what he does. For the most part I have had no major concerns, although recent GA review on an article he created did highlight the same issues as last year as did his new pet project (Cadenza Piano) where he once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:Notability in favour of a whole bunch of promotional material including content farms that haven't added content in 2 years and directly [https://www.mako.co.il/tv-the-next-star/season7-street_piano/Article-961868d33e65f61026.htm sponsored content ("In collaboration with Mifal Hapayis") by the company responsible for installing them. Koncorde (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
For further evidence of battleground mentality, see this Requested Move discussion that saw him reply to every single user who disagreed.
Historic edit warring last year, same persistent edit summaries accusing others of edit warring: [46] [47] [48] [49] Resulting in WP:FOOTBALL re-stating existing informal guidelines as formal rules against cruftiness Koncorde (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
maxim.il89 comment First of all, I would like that it's too often that Koncorde finds his ways into articles I start or edit extensively - is he a stalker or something? Yes, we had a disagreement a while ago, but I honestly feel like he's stalking me or something, this isn't normal behaviour, it's not normal that every article I start or edit, suddenly he appears.
Secondly, I don't support edit warring - I support using the talk page, here's the thing. Koncorde thinks it's normal to leave a whole section with only two sentences, I don't. He doesn't debate what should or shouldn't be kept there (which is what's happening now in the Charity section of the Sunderland article), he just removes it and thinks his voice is the law and anyone else can speak but don't get to decide.
Him saying that he "tried working with Maxim" is ludicrous - I'm happy to use the talk page, I'm happy to seek consensus, I'm happy to engage in discussion, I'm not happy to be stalked by someone who has some personal agenda against me. I've said a few times that I'd prefer a neutral admin to look at articles I create/edit, not someone with some vindictive agenda, which is what it feels to me. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit war and other breaches of polcy (Result: Blocked)
Hello - User:Heiko Gerber has breached multiple policies:
- Adding unreferenced content, see [50]
- Civility, see [51]
- 3RR, see [52]
- Engaging in an edit war, see [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see [54], [55], [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this IP is by a perma-banned user Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that is false and also note this is an open IP. (also, Heiko Gerber please review Ad hominem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah Im sure this is your first day here and you just stumbled across the noticeboard page and learned about 3RR today Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that is false and also note this is an open IP. (also, Heiko Gerber please review Ad hominem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this IP is by a perma-banned user Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see [54], [55], [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
see here for further discussion Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Breaching_various_policies
User:3Oh Hexelon reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page: Turkish Kurdistan|}}
User being reported:3Oh Hexelon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) {{}}
Previous version reverted to: diff [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[59]]
Comments: They want us to source that mainly Kurds call the parts of Kurdistan as a part of Kurdistan. It is similar that we source that mainly French see that New Caledonia is part of France, mainly British see the Falkland Islands are part of the UK or the Catalans see parts of Catalunya as part of Catalunya Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
He looks like a sock along with User:Kerkükli. As seen here, he just edited the page right after 3Oh Hexelon: 1 2 3. Here is another Kurdish page Kerkükli targeted: 4 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 week for socking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: The editor seem to use a third account now; Talkativeness. Same type of edits in the same type of articles. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:BritishMarxist reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Not blocked)
Page: List of genocides by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BritishMarxist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985828953 by 7645ERB (talk) doesnt fit un definition"
- 05:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985826740 by GizzyCatBella (talk) Seriously, stop. You're posting western propaganda on here. It doesn't even fit the UN definition of genocide."
- 04:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985821214 by Donner60 (talk) They wrongly reverted my edits. There is no evidence Soviet Union committed genocide. This is an act of anticommunism and you have been warned. I will report to admins next time."
- 03:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985743640 by Lenoved3 (talk)"
- 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Scholars are still divided on whether the "Holodomor" was a genocide. A genocide is killing of an ethnic or religious group. There has yet to be evidence Joseph Stalin hated Ukrainians, or whether he planned to exterminate them."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of genocides by death toll."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 04:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Holodomor edit war */ new section"
Comments:
New editor has ignored a 3RR warning and a ping at the talk page, while reverting 5 times in 13 or so hours. — MarkH21talk 05:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Not blocked There is definitely a justification for a block here but since User:BritishMarxist has started to edit the talk page I won't. If they continue the edit war on the talk page without engaging in discussion let me know or file another report. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
User:IceWelder reported by User:Jostwiki (Result: Reporter blocked as a sock)
Page: The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IceWelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [985887172]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [985884893]
- [985885475]
- [985839846]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [985885475]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I have known that IceWelder is abusing Wikipedia. I want him to be banned for his actions. He has reverted my edits to several articles so far. I think that this isn't fair at all. --Jostwiki (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The reporting user is currently under investiation at SPI. They did not adhere to WP:BRD and have been edit warring on several articles, including four times on the article in question.[60][61][62][63] Additionally, edits like this and [64] clearly indicate that the user is connected to Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:6242:B500:5C79:57AC:FAB1:242A, which has been range-blocked as a sock in the same SPI case. There, the user also unsuccessfully tried the same ANI blames with other users.[65][66] IceWelder [✉] 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked Jostwiki indefinitely per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnwest1999.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
User:OgamD218 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:not blocked )
Page: The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OgamD218 (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 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC) to 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC) to 14:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 13:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC) to 13:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Exodus."
- 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Minimalism"
- 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Minimalism */ reply"
Comments:
The editor seems to push WP:OR and WP:Editorializing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just reached out to an admin on this matter apologizing for the issues I caused. The work in controversy I commenced using my smartphone since I temporarily lacked access to my laptop-which I would normally use to make edits of significant length. My unfamiliarity with using a phone for this level of work clearly showed, issues i have found so far include: not receiving ANY in app notifications of the warnings I was being sent, failing to realize that drafts of my edits, often transferred between windows failed to copy paste in full-almost always citation failed to attach.
- I never intended to make such sweeping uncited edits,given the subject matter I can't even visualize assuming I'd be able to get away with this, a point compounded by the many warnings from different users posted on my talk page in close succession. OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- As noted by User:Doug Weller, i kept tagging content as needing a citation, then proceeded to add uncited content. Weller noted it appeared I did not know what I was doing-this was true. I would like to note that I at no point clicked revert or undo, I was confused working on my phone and misinterpreted the rising issues to be a glitch or errors i missed/made using the unfamiliar screen. I instead ended up typing out the same edit over and over-idt a party to an edit war would go thru such trouble. I am still fairly new to this side of wiki but have never in the past caused issues like this. A review of my edits will at the very least show that this was a total divergence from my usual practices. I would not shy away from defending an edit i made in good faith, that is not problem here however, as I am seeing many of my edits not only lacked cites but were drafts that included content not intended for final publish.OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am still surveying the damage caused by my confusion and apologize for any errors in this explanation and issues I have failed to address, I thought it better to clarify asap that my actions were unintentional. If not for the fact page(s) have been locked I would undo all my edits from the last several hours.OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @OgamD218: Friendly advice: use Firefox, both on smartphone and on the computer. It works best, you may even go back in case of edit conflicts and copy/paste what you wrote previously. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tgeorgescu thank for the tip, I’ve been using safari up until now OgamD218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @OgamD218: Friendly advice: use Firefox, both on smartphone and on the computer. It works best, you may even go back in case of edit conflicts and copy/paste what you wrote previously. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am still surveying the damage caused by my confusion and apologize for any errors in this explanation and issues I have failed to address, I thought it better to clarify asap that my actions were unintentional. If not for the fact page(s) have been locked I would undo all my edits from the last several hours.OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Not blocked I don't see anything to gain in blocking this editor. I accept their comments above and in their email to me. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Hhl95 reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Both editors warned)
Page: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hhl95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985796365 by LeoFrank (talk) That was not me. Stop edit warring and stop making assumptions."
- 01:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985545523 by LeoFrank (talk) These references were there to support the dates on which these routes would begin. Now that they have begun, the reference directly with the airline is enough and removal of these references makes the table better readible. After all, we don't use references for every specific destination."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol."
- 00:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Also these two reverts by the user as an IP:
- That is not my IP, I'm always logged in. Stop this heist now. It is unacceptable to make false accusations to serve your own interests. As per WP:AGF, you need to provide evidence that the other IP's were mine. I can tell you you won't find evidence, because it wasn't me. Consider also the comments that were made with those revisions; they're written in a style that I wouldn't use. You are assuming bad faith, which is wrong. See also Wikipedia:Don't assume. Hhl95 04:59 (UTC+1), 29 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- To admins reviewing this case. This user probably needs to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOUND. Please see my talk page where they are repeatedly undoing my edits. — LeoFrank Talk 07:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Both User:Hhh95 and User:LeoFrank are warned. Each of you is risking a block the next time you revert at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol unless you've obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. User:Hhh95 should also not restore their own comments on another user's talk page if the user has removed them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Hhh95 was removing references from the Airlines and destinations sections of the said article. They have been reverted by two other editors, please see the article history. But this user resorted to restoring them even without logging in as pointed out in the diffs above. — LeoFrank Talk 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have semiprotected the article. So if there is some editor here that is editing logged-out, that problem won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Hhh95 was removing references from the Airlines and destinations sections of the said article. They have been reverted by two other editors, please see the article history. But this user resorted to restoring them even without logging in as pointed out in the diffs above. — LeoFrank Talk 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:GSS reported by User:Kuckuckz (Result: Page EC protected)
Page: Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985693220&oldid=985692021
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985671930&oldid=985628955
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985693220&oldid=985692021
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985703174&oldid=985702948
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985704830&oldid=985704549
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)&diff=985910546&oldid=985909857
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kuckuckz (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Please_undo_your_last_deletion
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)#Please_stop_repetitive_interruption
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuckuckz
Comments: My whole work gets repeatedly deleted. I try to do it good but it seems impossible, that is very sad! There are three users did delete my work: user:GSS, user:David_Gerard, user:Grayfell - I feel very much hindered to write on wikipedia. I also asked @MER-C on my talk-page for a third opinion, but go no answer. The last accuse was 'promotional' which i can not see. Also, these three users are deleting content without contributing that aticle themselves, it seems like they are mainly suppressing. I should get much more honored as contributor. Sorry for that sad story.
- Note: this article is under 1RR and general sanctions per WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: I have placed Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) under extended confirmed protection per the GS/CRYPTO sanctions. Recently there have been changes made by people with fewer than 500 Wikipedia edits who seem to be enthusiasts for the topic and may not be familiar with Wikipedia standards. For example, one of them removed the 'unreliable sources' tag. The sanctions at WP:GS/CRYPTO were adopted by the community to deal with this kind of issue. New editors can still use the article talk page to propose changes. EdJohnston (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You seem to be referring to me with regards to one of the new edits? How is this supposed to assist in the creation of the wiki article. In my comment I describe my reasoning for removing the tag. TNO is a well established source and even has its own wiki page: Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek (also an english page). Instead of shutting down edits in its entirety from new individuals one could simply undo the small edit instead of blocking new users from trying to improve the page? Seems like quite an over-reaction. I left the "irrelevant citation" there as it can be improved upon with another source but to call a National institute for Dutch research unreliable doesn't make much sense, hence why I removed the tag. Edits the user complaint above ^ is referring to are deletions by GSS/David (so it seems) as stated above. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Mnl0g 044 reported by User:DA1 (Result: No action)
Page: Hayreddin Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnl0g 044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Was asked to consider writing a report here. User had been informed about 'citation clutter' and WP:CITEMERGE but continued to revert. The edit in question is one phrase "of Turkish" having five different ref footnotes [72] when all I did was merge three of the smallest footnotes into one ref box with bullet-points as suggested in the WP page above, reducing 5 to 3 refs. If we can't even start a cleanup process than there's not much hope for the rest of the article. This is tame and clear-cut and not worth being dragged out further. DA1 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action. User:DA1, you might have the better idea here but you've never tried any talk page discussion. See WP:DR for the recommended steps. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Գարիկ Ավագյան (Result: Agreement)
Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This user mostly without discussion reverts other users' edits to his advantage. Look at the user's contribution page. He has already done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 articles, connected to the Nagorno-Karabakh ongoing conflict.
- Hello. I'll address all the edits one by one:
- 1) User tries to remove an already established paragraph about a video because he thinks it's not WP:RS, yet he provides no reason why he thinks it's WP:RS other than apparent WP:IJDLI. You're supposed to start a discussion on the talk page before removing established content for a reason only you have brought up so far.
- 2) User tries to add a new paragraph about a very serious claim with only 2 sources, one of them being a government claim from the separatist regime (accuser) and the other is a source directly quoting the separatist regime's government without any making confirmation of itself. An accusation as serious as beheading a soldier needs a reliable source that isn't from a separatist government, whose only purpose is to show the accused side in a bad light.
- 3) Somewhat confused as to part of that revert you thought is an "edit war" or "wrong". I've explained it in my edit summary. "Accused" already means according to the accuser and has not yet been confirmed by anybody else. The user was trying to repeat the point in an article which only needs shortening, not expanding.
- 4) User is trying to change a direct quote from a source that accuses one side of something. You can't change a quote.
- 5) Again, very confused as what part of this edit you thought is an "edit war" or "wrong". I could even report you for that edit. You've removed a whole paragraph because one word in the paragraph was not the same as in the source. I restored the paragraph and in my next edit, changed the word (that you deleted the whole paragraph for) per source.
- Comment: Are you sure these edits are me reverting things to my advantage, or me reverting things to a way that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I've provided reason in all of the edit summaries about why they were reverted and took time to explain them further here. And I'm also confused as to how any of the provided edits of my are an edit war when none of the edits I made led to one or were reverted back by another user. (if someone did revert my edit, I would take it to the talk page and discuss it to reach consensus and wouldn't start an edit war, like I haven't so far). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:CuriousGolden, you seem to be admitting that the five edits listed in the report really *are* reverts. Is that correct? Your argument is that the reverts are beneficial, but they still are reverts. Even #5 is marked 'Undid' in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: They are 5 different reverts in completely different times about completely different subjects between different users, in none of which 3RR was broken. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Check the wording of the policy in WP:EW:
The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
- The five edits at the head of this report are all by you, they are all reverts, and they all happened on 28 October. That clearly violates WP:3RR. You might be able to avoid a block if you will agree to stay away from this article and its talk page for a period of two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I'll choose avoiding the article for two weeks. Thanks. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Check the wording of the policy in WP:EW:
- @EdJohnston: They are 5 different reverts in completely different times about completely different subjects between different users, in none of which 3RR was broken. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:CuriousGolden, you seem to be admitting that the five edits listed in the report really *are* reverts. Is that correct? Your argument is that the reverts are beneficial, but they still are reverts. Even #5 is marked 'Undid' in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the the history of the article it is quite visible that CuriousGolden is in one of the leading editors per number of its reverts. I can attest that by far not all his / her reverts are discussed in talk / user page as claimed, but rather "last word" statements are made in the reversion comment instead. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You still haven't been able to provide any source for any of my reverts breaking any rule as you love to claim everywhere. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: To avoid a block, User:CuriousGolden has agreed to stay away from the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article and its talk page for two weeks. I hope you will also refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places during that time. You were previously alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April. I hope that all the Nagorno-Karabakh editors will keep those sanctions in mind. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston I hope this includes articles related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as well, where many reverts were done by the user, such as, 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks, 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, Timeline of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and others. I would appreciate seeing admins in the article 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and other articles connected to this ongoing conflict, especially on the Talk pages. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Vallee01 reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: Page full protected)
Page: Anarcha-feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vallee01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Version 1
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:22, 28 October
- 10:03, 28 October
- 10:13, 28 October
- 10:29, 28 October
- 23:40, 28 October (reverting to Version 2)
- 07:23, 29 October (reverting to Version 3)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning 1 Warning 2 Further back-and-forth
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion
Comments:
Vallee01 has responded to polite talk-page discussion, such as requests for reliable sources [78][79][80], with hostile edit summaries [81][82][83], and finally a veiled accusation of incompetence [84]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is currently in discussion in the talk page, the current image is different from the others. Moreover I stated my reasons for reverting the image on the talk page. What you are saying has absolutely no case, it's absurd. I am not randomly reverting images, I have made clearly to go onto the talk page, and made compromise.
- In fact I did even revert the image to have both images in discussion, I kept the current image to go and discuss on the talk page, as a compromise the current article has both images as to avoid edit warring anarcha-feminism the top is a collage and the other is a single image that is under discussion.
- Not only that but you didn't even read anything, please read my actual response. In what incompetence do you speak? That you don't like the current edits? And of what source? That the bisected flag of anarcha feminism represents anarcha feminism? If you actually read my response instead of acting upon you're own POV you would have seen I did cite a source, you can use pages like this as a source if they simply prove certain groups use such image, it is reliable. Moreover, I am a student studying physics and have extremely good grades, "competence". A large part of excellent Wikipedia editors are armchair physics, historians etc... This isn't a place for you to be making personal attacks. You have no case. Vallee01 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are the one accusing others of incompetence in the very diff I linked to above. You have re-added your preferred content after it was removed by others, five separate times. It doesn't matter whether they are the same images or different images. It still counts as a revert, as I already explained on your user talk page. You haven't made any "compromise", you just created a new composite image (wholly apart from the five separate reverts) that you figured was better, without taking others' stated objections into account at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Revert #6 has been added above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Wikiman122112 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Indef)
Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiman122112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:08, 29 October 2020 "Added note (Tag: Reverted)"
- 12:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Hopefully this New note will make it and be the official height. I will try and push it in the consensus . And end this confusion once and for all , Sherdog source added including the past 2 sources that were on the article"
- 11:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986031888 by Bastun (talk) consensus can sure change , let’s discuss on there. It’s ok"
- 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986031393 by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk) check talk page . Let’s discuss, you can’t just revert such a reliable source and great note"
- 11:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986028847 by NEDOCHAN (talk) check talk page , must get to a new consensus"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Hello , why is it that you people have to report whenever things don’t go your way , fellow editors take a look at the Conor mcgregor article and please help us out there to avoiding an edit war . I am trying to get to a new consensus because of some false consensus several editors have reached to . It’s time to start a new consensus but the editors, especially the Irish person won’t accept to start discussing like a normal person would on Wikipedia. I did nothing wrong . I could report the user who reported me for edit warring as well, but I understand wiki guidelines more and I am more patient. Please take a look at the new note edit I made and write back . Whether consensus is reached or not the sources they chose are in the note itself but I added the Sherdog source as well because according to multimedia wiki edits it’s the most reliable and has been used in many other mma articles.Wikiman122112 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
3RR has been breached. 1, 2, 3, 4 (yes, this does indeed count as a revert). This editor previous block for edit warring expired just yesterday. They were removing Sherdog as a source, breached 3RR and received a deserved 1 week block. Now they've edit warred again, breached 3RR, but this time they're motive is to include Sherdog. Classic case of WP:POINTy. The "false consensus" this user speaks of was achieved through a lengthy discussion at Talk:Conor McGregor#Conor McGregor's Height Should be 5'11" and Certainly Not 5'8", in which several editors participated (including admins), of which the majority agreed that 5'9 is the height to be listed. – 2.O.Boxing 14:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
And now a fifth revert. – 2.O.Boxing 15:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- N.B.: Wikiman122112 has now actually vandalised this report, which is a new one on me! Going to attempt to restore now while retaining Squared.Circle.Boxing's subsequent comment. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely – User has been blocked twice previously in the month of October alone! Now they are removing part of their own report. They previously removed an entire AN3 report on October 14. If they have any defense for this nonsense (either the constant revert warring on heights and weights of fighters, or removal of their own report) they should offer it in their unblock appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Kami2018 reported by User:Xerxes931 (Result: )
Page: Khalji dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [85]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [86] 9 August revert
- [87] 10 August revert
- [88] 22 August Revert
- [89] 28 August revert
- [90] 2 September revert
- [91] 11 September revert
- [92] 4 October revert
- [93] 9 October reverting sourced information
- [94] 18 October reverting sourced information
- [95] 20 October reverting it again
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96] once by this user on the 18th and then by me [97]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]
Comments:
The reported user is reverting this page for almost 3 months now against several users including me and has done more than 10 reverts. As you can see the user bounces the article back and forth against several users. The user is removing the word "Afghan" from "Turco-Afghan" or "Turkic-Afghan" several times and wants it to be "Turkic" Solely, although the information is well sourced. The user is warned already and in the edit summaries me and other users pointed out to the user that the user should use Talk pages for reaching a consensus for the user's "idea or Point of View". The sources are against the user so I do not understand the many reverts. This is obvious edit-warring for the same information again and again for the same goal against many users. Xerxes931 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:243:2000:3610:B977:3959:92E2:C1A6 reported by User:Wjemather (Result: Semi)
Page: Jack Nicklaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:243:2000:3610:B977:3959:92E2:C1A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [99]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article ip user talk page: [105]
Comments:
IP user inserted problematic (NPOV) language to BLP, keeps reverting (later reverts with added cherry-picked sources) despite multiple contributors advising them directly and/or through edit summaries. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Solavirum reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )
Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]
Comments: This user has recently been blocked but still continues edit-warring. They have been on a revert spree for the past 48 hours: [114] and doesn't appear to stop. Some edit-summaries are misleading: "ce" ([115]) when in fact the user has reverted detailed information. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to answer too all of these one by one. I've been reported several times over this article, and all have been resulted in my favor. This isn't the first time I'm getting unjustly reported.
- 1 – this isn't a revert. There's a difference between a revert and removing something from the article. In any case, nobody contested it.
- 2 and 5 – there's a discussion going on about it. I've explained it [116], but EtienneDolet didn't even cared to respond. This is totally justified on my behalf. You'd got to respect WP:CONSENSUS.
- 3 and 4 – yet again justified. The footage was literally copied from Telegram with the watermark stuck to it. The footage was replaced with a free one later on by another user.
- 6 – you seem to fail to understand what WP:COPYEDITING means. If you objected my ce, you could have headed over to the talk page. Copyediting might include removal of certain content too. Putting WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH here.
Furthermore, this is not the article's talk page, it's my talk page. And that's not even an attempt to resolve dispute, it's just a warning spam on my talk page. Such actions won't put weight to your point. recently been blocked doesn't represent the reality too.
That's it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)