EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
:*'''Result:''' Stale. This is a complaint about [[User:Therequiembellishere]]. Their last edit at [[Chris Krebs]] was at 02:44 on 18 November, more than 72 hours ago. Since the start of 18 November there have been 100 edits by various people, so whatever this dispute was, seems to be getting merged in to the flood of new edits. If there is still a disagreement about use of the phrase 'contradicting Trump', can somebody open an [[WP:RFC]]? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
:*'''Result:''' Stale. This is a complaint about [[User:Therequiembellishere]]. Their last edit at [[Chris Krebs]] was at 02:44 on 18 November, more than 72 hours ago. Since the start of 18 November there have been 100 edits by various people, so whatever this dispute was, seems to be getting merged in to the flood of new edits. If there is still a disagreement about use of the phrase 'contradicting Trump', can somebody open an [[WP:RFC]]? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Teishin]] reported by [[User:Keepcalmandchill]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Teishin]] reported by [[User:Keepcalmandchill]] (Result: Both warned) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hellenistic philosophy}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hellenistic philosophy}} <br /> |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
:I do suggest reading their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&type=revision&diff=989291742&oldid=989284981&diffmode=source Help Desk comment], it is... interesting. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
:I do suggest reading their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&type=revision&diff=989291742&oldid=989284981&diffmode=source Help Desk comment], it is... interesting. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Result:''' [[User:Teishin]] and [[User:Keepcalmandchill]] are '''both warned''' for long term edit warring. The next person who makes an edit at [[Hellenistic philosophy]] is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. This dispute seems to have been going on since 1 October. Nobody is entitled to keep reverting endlessly. At some point you are expected to organize your own [[WP:Dispute resolution]] and find a consensus. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Konli17]] reported by [[User:عمرو بن كلثوم]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Konli17]] reported by [[User:عمرو بن كلثوم]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 19:41, 21 November 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 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:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )
Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First revert 17:59 12 nov:[1] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [2] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [3]
- Second revert 20:33 12 nov [4] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Comments:
- This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.
- This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here. Another personal attack on another user here.
- This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
- Here, which is part of the complaint above
- Other pages: Here, here,
- Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
- This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
- This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
- This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Admins, this is a very serious accusation and personal attack by user Paradise chronicle. Standing against YPG militias does not mean one is supporting ISIL. It's not black and white. See this Human Rights Watch story about PYD/YPG human rights violations. Your argument just shows that you are here to push a pro-PKK/PYD POV agenda. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
User:E-960 reported by User:François Robere (Result: Alerts)
Page: Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored last stable version of the text."
- 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Revert, pls do not edit war, and pls refrain from being disruptive — for new content, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"
- Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) to 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored the text to the last stable version — no consensus for the changes on the talk page."
10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim"
- 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988839744 by HQGG (talk) Revert, edit warring 3R rule, disruptive editing — you will be reported if you continue to edit war."
- 14:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988824497 by HQGG (talk) Revert, do not edit war."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 5RR, T-ban vio */ new section"
- 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Stop edit warring over church nonsense */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
- 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
- 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
Comments:
Discussion on abortion rights in Poland, after an attempted constitutional change by the Polish government. User has been previously c-banned from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed."[7] Repeated PAs and refusal to self-revert. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E-960: The "sports" diff was an oversight. I filed using Twinkle, and it automatically lists all edits from the last 25 or so hours. Regarding your diffs - only two of them are mine and they're spaced 20 hours apart (with discussion in between), so why you keep attacking me as "disruptive" is unclear. Note the second of the two collapses edits by four other editors, which could give a false impression about my edits. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment by E-960
This is a down right manipulation of reality. I think user François Robere thinks that if he files an admin complaint report first it will divert the attention from the fact that it's him and user HQGG who repeatably violated the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and despite an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, have re-inserted the disputed text, here: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Also, I would like to point out that other users have reverted those edits not just me, including Oliszydlowski and Snowded, also during the ongoing talk page discussion GizzyCatBella and NeonFor criticized François Robere and HQGG for their Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, yet François Robere did not refrain form his disruptive editing, and now cries wolf, when I reverted the text back to the original long-standing version. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, why is user François Robere, listing a completely unrelated edit (10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim") about Formula 1 and Robert Kubica, as proof of a content dispute against me in the Law section of the Poland article? Another point regarding the ban, it's scope relates to religion and secularism (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols, etc.), not law or general politics. This is just silly. This complaint should be dropped, as it's only purpose was to entrap someone and divert attention from François Robere own disruptive behavior. --E-960 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I put a 3RR warning on HQCG's talk page over this. Its fairly clear that this account and François Robere are edit warring, and agressively so. I'd suggest that the behaviour of François Robere is reviewed given the matter has been raised here. I should make it clear that I supported the community ban on E-960 and it not 100% clear to me if this topic comes under that. However this is about proccess and the editors concerned have not raised an RfC or similar. They may be right but edit warring is not the way to resolve this -----Snowded TALK 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- E-960 and HQGG are both edit warring. More concerning is the topic ban, which is broken outright (I participated in that discussion), and E-960's combatative behaviour here and from the looks of it on his talk page and article talk. E-960 is banned from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed, precisely due to this combatative behaviour, and examining the first diff in the sequence it discusses the legality of abortion in Poland which is within the remit of the ban, driving the point home is the first source cited titled Killing ‘Unborn Children’? The Catholic Church and Abortion Law in Poland Since 1989 from Social & Legal Studies which has Catholic Church in the title. Flaunting a community ban should have consequences.--Astral Leap (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- The most worrisome here is the fact that the account just above has been registered in February and did not start being active until June, yet knows the system very well. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and returning accouts of people who most likely are not allowed to be here should not be allowed to fan the flames. Flaunting this in the community's face should have consequences. SPI, anyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears that User:E-960 and User:HQGG have both broken 3RR, based on reverts that began on 15 November and continued into 16 November. Can anyone see a better alternative than blocking those two editors for 3RR violation? For example, general agreement to wait for an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston and Astral Leap, pls consider the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I don't think it's correct when you label everyone involved as "edit warring" even those who revert the new text and ask for a discussion. Wikipedia rules are clear, if you add new text and it gets reverted, you move to the talk page, not keep re-adding the text. This is precisely why these disputes explode, because some folks justify the editor who adds the new content and then aggressively keeps re-adding it, by saying something to the effect that everyone is edit warring - I disagree, restoring the original text and asking the editor who added the new content to discuss is not disruptive behavior, and in the past the Poland article was flooded with questionable additions. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, Astral Leap, the point you raised only lends more support to my claim that François Robere is just trying to entrap someone with this admin complaint. See, the original edit on abortion did not make any reference to the Church, the only debate at that time was about the use of the word "restrictive" (as it implied value), the original text was more neutral in its wording, see here [15]. This reference only appeared at the very last edit — the one added during the talk page discussion without consensus (and without being presented) and the same one where François Robere removed an entire paragraph on legal history in Poland, then immediately François Robere initiated this complain. Hmm... why would François Robere make such massive changes to the article and sneak a short reference to the Church then file a complaint for restoring the long-standing text. If the talk page discussion was in progress, editors should refrain form making disruptive edits to the text in question until consensus is reached, not make even more changes, and then cry foul. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- E-960, outlawing or restricting abortion in Poland is square in the middle of your topic ban. How can you not see this? Abortion legality is one of the central issues in secular or religious politics and is connected to the church. All of your edits there run contrary to the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per my understanding, as I was banned for a dispute on the Religion in the European Union on an issue related to the treatment Christians. I would highlight that the ban is related to topics of Christianity and secular politics (Secularism), which relates to (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols in government institutions, etc.). Issues, like abortion, LGBT or the death penalty are not necessarily connected, as there are many liberal Christian denominations, who support such issues (or ultra-conservatives in the case of the death penalty). So, it's difficult to argue that being for or against abortion means you are a Christian or you are not a Christian, these issues cut across various segments of the population. My initial issue was the use of the word "restrictive". I though it tilted the statement to one side, the original text just said what the law prescribes in Poland. As I mentioned before this is a high-level article so subsequently adding various points of view, would just expand the Law section and in the future create more disputes (and the issue can be described in detail in the topic specific articles like Abortion in Poland, which by the way, I'm not going to get involved in, as my focus for quite some time was the clean-up of the Poland article, everything form image selection, grammar, reference clean-up and trimming the text). --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- All of the sources I added link this to the Church and its dominant position in Polish politics.[16][17][18][19] François Robere (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Any non-governmental organization what ever it is, can voice its views or ideology and get involved in politicking — separation of church and state is more related to something like Iran and the Islamic Republic, etc. In any case, the original issue was the wording ("restrictive"), and then the disruptive editing, not who holds which position and why. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- All of the sources I added link this to the Church and its dominant position in Polish politics.[16][17][18][19] François Robere (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per my understanding, as I was banned for a dispute on the Religion in the European Union on an issue related to the treatment Christians. I would highlight that the ban is related to topics of Christianity and secular politics (Secularism), which relates to (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols in government institutions, etc.). Issues, like abortion, LGBT or the death penalty are not necessarily connected, as there are many liberal Christian denominations, who support such issues (or ultra-conservatives in the case of the death penalty). So, it's difficult to argue that being for or against abortion means you are a Christian or you are not a Christian, these issues cut across various segments of the population. My initial issue was the use of the word "restrictive". I though it tilted the statement to one side, the original text just said what the law prescribes in Poland. As I mentioned before this is a high-level article so subsequently adding various points of view, would just expand the Law section and in the future create more disputes (and the issue can be described in detail in the topic specific articles like Abortion in Poland, which by the way, I'm not going to get involved in, as my focus for quite some time was the clean-up of the Poland article, everything form image selection, grammar, reference clean-up and trimming the text). --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- E-960, outlawing or restricting abortion in Poland is square in the middle of your topic ban. How can you not see this? Abortion legality is one of the central issues in secular or religious politics and is connected to the church. All of your edits there run contrary to the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston and Astral Leap, pls consider the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I don't think it's correct when you label everyone involved as "edit warring" even those who revert the new text and ask for a discussion. Wikipedia rules are clear, if you add new text and it gets reverted, you move to the talk page, not keep re-adding the text. This is precisely why these disputes explode, because some folks justify the editor who adds the new content and then aggressively keeps re-adding it, by saying something to the effect that everyone is edit warring - I disagree, restoring the original text and asking the editor who added the new content to discuss is not disruptive behavior, and in the past the Poland article was flooded with questionable additions. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears that User:E-960 and User:HQGG have both broken 3RR, based on reverts that began on 15 November and continued into 16 November. Can anyone see a better alternative than blocking those two editors for 3RR violation? For example, general agreement to wait for an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that François Robere engaged in these type of crude tactics against other editors before, example here: [20]. Perhaps, some kind of a sanction should be imposed on François Robere, because this keeps reoccurring, He periodically keeps filing frivolous complaints against other editors, all the while engaging in disruptive editing himself. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Though I haven't closed this edit warring report, I've alerted both User:E-960 and User:François Robere to the discretionary sanctions under the abortion decision. I'm still hoping that any of the participants will offer a proposal for resolving the dispute. For instance, there was a suggestion by User:Snowded at Talk:Poland#Reset for an RfC. Anybody want to open one? EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've engaged and agreed to compromise on both TP threads (Talk:Poland#Abortion and Talk:Poland#Reset), and my edits reflect that. If you filter out the edit warring between E-960 and HQGG, and the former's aggressive comments, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. François Robere (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, no need in keeping this claim open, however I would like to raise one final point regarding François Robere behavior. I do hope that this is noticed by the Administrators, as it shows why some editors question his approach. In the past on the Poland talk page, François Robere advocated for the inclusion of a of a text which stated that Jesus Christ was the king of Poland, here: [21], the original heading of the thread was provocatively titled "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" (later changed to "Christianity in Poland") [22]. The issue kicked off in a surprisingly similar manner, some anonymous IP and/or newly created user account started things off, then when the talk page discussion ensued, François Robere gets involved and makes his edits, here: [23], with the support of a newly created account (User:Volodya's song in that instance) who also makes similar edits, here: [24] (going so far as to change the Poland infobox to include Christ as king of Poland). So, this is a similar patter as in this most recent discussion where user François Robere and user HQGG edited in tandem, and in that case the choice of topic advocated for inclusion in the Poland article was somewhat unusual, to say the least. --E-960 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I supported mentioning a declaration passed in the Polish parliament that designated Jesus "King of Poland", and a subsequent "coronation" attended by the President, Prime Minister, and other dignitaries.[25][26][27][28] Those events were at once both notable, and very different from eg. a ruling by Poland's constitutional court that would ban 98% of abortions in a country where 99% of abortions are already done illegally.
- That discussion also falls under your T-ban from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed".
- I engaged you respectfully and on-topic throughout this discussion, and even asked that you self-revert before filing this, yet you continue attacking me here, on your TP and on Talk:Poland, while refusing to compromise on content that's heavily backed by sources.[29][30][31][32] This is not productive. François Robere (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I supported mentioning a declaration passed in the Polish parliament that designated Jesus "King of Poland", and a subsequent "coronation" attended by the President, Prime Minister, and other dignitaries.[25][26][27][28] Those events were at once both notable, and very different from eg. a ruling by Poland's constitutional court that would ban 98% of abortions in a country where 99% of abortions are already done illegally.
Note to the reviewing administrators: This just has been filed (by account registered in February, did not start being active until June - well understanding the system) -[33] - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- The AL account is just a more advanced version of HQGG, yet another single purpose account with very few edits. All of this reminds me a lot of the accounts reviewed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. A lot of accounts reviewed there are from the same time period and show similar on and off pattern - make few edits, go silent for few months, go back. An effort to mature the account for auto-confirmation? Someone is not playing fair here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No block, since E-960 has agreed to 'take a step back'. I have alerted two editors to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB. The abortion decision should apply to addition, removal or changing of anything on the topic of abortion though not to the Poland article as a whole. If E-960 shows that they are not capable of editing neutrally on the topic of abortion, they could be banned from the topic. Though there is some progress at Talk:Poland#Reset there is so far no actual RfC on the talk page. If there were, we might have more confidence in User:François Robere's statement above that "there doesn't seem to be much of a problem." EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- O ye of little faith...[34] François Robere (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: Stale)
Page: Chris Krebs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (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:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989284297
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989283449
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989271085
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989269711
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yousef_Raz&oldid=989286179
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Krebs&oldid=989276715 Yousef Raz (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
Article Chris Krebs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Chris Krebs was the first and currently the only Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is well cite by multiple sources including the Washington Post. Users continue to change the article to reflect his previous position in a now defunct federal agency. I have made attempts to discuss this with the initial user that was altering the article. He has not responded to my discussion attempts. Another user has now changed it back to the incorrect information. How do I get it back to reflect correctly without violating the rules? Do I wait for a fourth user to change it back? This seems pretty simple and straight forward.05:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talk • contribs)
- Comment I've fixed the major formatting issues with this request and informed Yousef Raz that the report is missing some fairly crucial pieces: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Edit Warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Stale. This is a complaint about User:Therequiembellishere. Their last edit at Chris Krebs was at 02:44 on 18 November, more than 72 hours ago. Since the start of 18 November there have been 100 edits by various people, so whatever this dispute was, seems to be getting merged in to the flood of new edits. If there is still a disagreement about use of the phrase 'contradicting Trump', can somebody open an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Both warned)
Page: Hellenistic philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teishin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]
Comments:
While this has extended beyond a 24 hour period, I think you will see that there is no attempt to find a solution to the issue by the user. In fact, they have not made a clear case for what it is that they object to in the content. They have only raised the claim that it conflicts with the article Hellenistic period, which it does not, and in any case that's WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the rest of the content that is being reverted is not explained by this. As you can see, they have not responded to a discussion on the talk page. You will also see from the other talk page discussions that this user is in general not at all constructive, often appealing to their own expertise or other articles against content with academic sources, as well as engaging in extremely petty fights over interpretation of individuals words, etc. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Keepcalmandchill has previously had to withdraw two previous accusations against me of edit warring. This third one is similarly unfounded. As with Keepcalmandchill's edits on the subject of Hellenistic philosophy, this complaint is also based on factually incorrect information. It should be clear to any reader of Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy that extensive conversation is happening and that Keepcalmandchill's comments have been responded to. Keepcalmandchill is correct that I have pointed out that I have made over 1,000 edits on detail pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy and that Keepcalmandchill has made none. Keepcalmandchill is similarly correct that I have pointed out that their edits on Hellenistic philosophy contradict sourced claims made on other, more-detailed pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy, typically sourced from various specialized academic sources rather than the two introductions to philosophy that Keepcalmandchill repeatedly cites for all claims. Keepcalmandchill is also correct that I repeatedly point out that this area of philosophy (like all of the others) involves specialized terminology which needs to be used with precision. Keepcalmandchill is again correct that the 3 reversions in 24 hour rule has not actually been broken. But, as one can see, they have decided to post a complaint anyway. I suggest that this matter would be better addressed by availing of some form of third-party intervention.
I apologize that the volunteers who deal with edit warring issues have to spend time addressing this matter, as all parties are in agreement about the fact that the reversion rule has not been broken. It should be noted that shortly prior to Keepcalmandchill raised this complaint I had asked for help on this matter at the Help Desk as it had become clear to me that an impasse was looming. Teishin (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did not "have to withdraw" the previous complaints. I did so as a gesture of goodwill after you responded with some degree of positivity to constructive compromise proposals that I made in the relevant discussions. As both of those complaints involved an outright violation of 3RR, I think it is safe to say that this user has little respect for the rule. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I do suggest reading their Help Desk comment, it is... interesting. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Teishin and User:Keepcalmandchill are both warned for long term edit warring. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. This dispute seems to have been going on since 1 October. Nobody is entitled to keep reverting endlessly. At some point you are expected to organize your own WP:Dispute resolution and find a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: )
Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]
Comments:
This is an article that is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War theme (1RR). The user reported here has a long history of edit-warring, and there is another case open against them in the noticeboard. This user has an extremist nationalistic POV agenda they are trying to push in many articles, as witnessed in the other complaint. Look at their revert history and edit warring behavior that warranted many warnings and complaints by several users on their Talk page and related articles Talk pages. This user is not here to contribute positively,, but to push their POV through wherever they can. Thank you for your attention. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Kohli17 has added content, it has been reverted, and they have re-added it. AFAICS that is only one revert. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Yzd.exe reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page: Order of Assassins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yzd.exe (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:
Comments:
User resumed his edit warring right after his previous block for edit warring expired. Looking at his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and comments in his edit summaries (which he keeps repeating), I frankly doubt he is here to WP:BUILDWP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Indef. Their account was created on 11 November. The user continued to edit war right out of the gate after their prior block expired. Their first edit war (that led to the 15 November block) was that the Persian Gulf had to be called the Arabian Gulf. This user seems unlikely to follow our policies. They made no response to a final warning after this report was opened. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Konli17 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )
Page: Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts: Kurds in Turkey:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=987933664&oldid=986442044
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=987987024&oldid=987959370
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989224805&oldid=989161721
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989239161&oldid=989238947
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=989239161
Iranian Kurdistan:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=989208381&oldid=989143370
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=988771188&oldid=988766525
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=988651541&oldid=988633903
Turkish Kurdistan:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989250307&oldid=989239035
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989229924&oldid=989161887
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989161637&oldid=988670543
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=988579413&oldid=988533507
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=986535338&oldid=985813169
Western Armenia:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=988156629&oldid=988138043
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=987937608&oldid=987905240
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=987904103&oldid=987903452
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53] [54] [55]
Comments:
This user is extremely POV pushing, and doing long lasting edit wars with other users. He is thinking Turkey or Iran is occupying Kurdistan. He got ridiculous edits such as changing short description into "Iranian-controlled part of Kurdistan" or such as "the portion of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of Turkey", as if Iran or Turkey is occupying a foreign country. As for Western Armenia, claiming an Armenian irredentist concept is "Turkish irredentism". This user has clearly no idea about distinguishing an geocultural region or a political region.
Beside that, insisting about a map made by a blocked user turned out to be a sockpuppet, which is clearly controversial.
Also adding in another map, adding wrong reference, you can control yourself.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989358094&oldid=989334138
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989358703&oldid=989358094
Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
´*Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Konli17 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )
Page: Gaziantep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989382024 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) No, it's not"
- 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989378703 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) Erdogan says Kurds and Turks are brothers"
- 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989366968 by Beshogur (talk) Undo unexplained blanking, correct"
- 14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Add Kurdish name"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Turkish Kurdistan."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Konli17 has been consistently reverting almost everyone else's edits in the Syrian Kurdistan page. This is the 4th case against them still open with no Admin action yet! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Veritaes Unam reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page: Belshazzar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Veritaes Unam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Added reference to the Verse Account of Nabonidus"
- Consecutive edits made from 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) to 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989432937 by Ichthyovenator (talk) I understand your claim, but I cited this with two reputable sources. Furthermore, the Verse Account of Nabonidus explicitly states Nabonidus passed the kingship to his son."
- 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989441886 by Tgeorgescu (talk) There is no original research, I cited two academic sources that support the hive claim. Furthermore, no Scriptures were cited, so time shouldn’t be wasted using such reasoning to remove sourced content."
- 23:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Noted the scholarly disagreement on the historicity of Belshazzar’s feast, and added citations for sources that accept its historicity."
- 22:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Emphasized the fact that Belshazzar was king of Babylon with his father as co-regent, added dates and two references."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful"
- 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Belshazzar."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Another edit war"
- 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Another edit war */ WP:CHOPSY"
- 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Another edit war */ typo"
- 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Another edit war */ comparison"
- 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Another edit war */ please desist"
- 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Another edit war */ typo"
Comments:
N.B.: Two or more consecutive reverts (i.e. consecutive edits) count as only one revert. To this I might add that their name, which means one truth
in Latin, does not promise much good. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:172.58.43.70 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page: List of messiah claimants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.58.43.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [57] (diff added by Sundayclose (talk · contribs))
- 07:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Other or combination messiah claimants */"
- 06:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Other or combination messiah claimants */"
- 06:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989462148 by Sundayclose (talk)"
IP-hopped to 172.58.46.158 (talk · contribs) (diffs added by Sundayclose (talk · contribs))
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 06:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of messiah claimants."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Also 172.58.46.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Buidhe reported by User:ImTheIP (Result: No action)
Page: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [60]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [63] [64] [65]
Comments:
Buidhe violated the one-revert rule on the article in question. They were informed of their infraction by yours truly here [66] and asked to self-revert. User Zero0000 chimed in and also asked them to revert. Buidhe is ignoring the messages left on their talk page since they have been editing Wikipedia afterwards. I think my request to self-revert was very polite and their (non-)response is very rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImTheIP (talk • contribs)
The first edit deleted an article section added in 2013. While I am confident that it satisfies the definition of a revert, I've often thought that there should be a guideline on how to treat changes to very old text. Should there be a time-limit built into the definition of "revert"? Zerotalk 11:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- If removing content in an article is considered a revert, virtually any edit to a 1RR article that alters existing text could be considered a partial revert and such articles would be very difficult to edit. If you're going to sanction me for this, please start with this series of edits to the 1RR restricted Armenian Genocide article, virtually all of which are reverts by this strange definition. (t · c) buidhe 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- The vagueness of the phrasing of core parts of WP:EDITWAR has been "weaponized" in the past to get editors sanctioned. While technically it is true that any removal is "undoing of another editor's action" (because someone had to add it), it's also true that "reversal" is generally understood to be of some recent change. Any other reading would make even basic CE sanctionable - an untenable policy for a project like this. Shrike was right to ask which edits were reverted, and neither ImTheIP nor Zero provided diffs. This request should be dismissed with a friendly warning to all involved to cooperate better. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- If Buide's behavior is acceptable then it appears that any user can cite WP:OR and delete any section of any article and then stonewall when challenged about it. Unless the user challenging the edit gets someone to help them reverting, the original user will always "win" due to their one "extra revert". The relevant policy is discussed here: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". Aiui, the policy reads "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Buidhe violated the underlined part. ImTheIP (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- The "original author" rule was withdrawn by Arbcom. Please see WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles for a summary of the current rules. Zerotalk 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe violated the underlined part
But that's not what you warned him against - you warned him against 1RR, which he understandably rejected (and an editor is entitled to a warning before being brought here). François Robere (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- To what version the first revert was reverting? The thing is that first revert was edit and not revert. Removal of old material was never enforced or considered a revert especially in I/P area --22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I checked the article's history. Buidhe's edit reverted in full the following edit: [67] ImTheIP (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just 2013? Are you sure they didn't revert anything from earlier? :-P François Robere (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Despite the misinformation above, there is no rule that a revert must recover an earlier version of the article. The definitions at WP:Edit warring simply do not have this; they say "in whole or in part" three times. It is also easy to see: editorA adds textA, editorB adds textB, editorC removes textA; nobody can deny that editorC did a revert even though the full text afterwards does not match any previous version. Zerotalk 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- You maybe right but I was chastised by admins when I asked to enforce it. We need some consistency in enforcing the polices Shrike (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Consistency? On AN? François Robere (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- You maybe right but I was chastised by admins when I asked to enforce it. We need some consistency in enforcing the polices Shrike (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action. When enforcing either 3RR or 1RR, admins will usually not take the first edit as a revert unless it undoes a recent change. In the case of the first diff given above, User:Buidhe was undoing something from seven years earlier, according to patient analysis by the filer, User:ImTheIP. There seems to be admin discretion on whether to call this a revert. I am choosing not to call it that. So there is no 1RR violation. If Buidhe really thinks the sources are so bad, I would hope to see him on the talk page helping to select better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very disappointed with this decision and I stand by my original assessment that Buidhe broke both the letter and the spirit of the law. If that is not correct, I'll have to adapt to anticipate that editors will behave as poorly as Buidhe did and adjust my own behavior to match. I hope the reason for this decision isn't the fact that Buidhe has a longer tenure on Wikipedia than me. ImTheIP (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Bigboy 691 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )
Page: Canelo Álvarez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigboy 691 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68] – revision without section in dispute
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WikiProject Boxing – Titles in boxing section, ongoing discussion
Comments:
User:Bigboy 691 is bulk-adding a large section to boxing bio articles which has not yet gained consensus at WikiProject Boxing, which oversees the MOS:BOXING style guide. There is already a detailed section within the latter – MOS:BOXING/TITLES – which handles championships won by a boxer and uses succession boxes. There is currently discussion about whether to include a summary-type of section earlier in the articles, but User:Bigboy 691 insists on adding the sections anyway, without waiting for consensus or indeed participating in discussion. This is no longer WP:BOLD, but disruptive editing because discussion is still ongoing. Instead, he has blanked his talk page a few times despite requests to engage in discussion, and he appears to have slight conduct issues via edit summaries:
- "Not everyone reads those boring links sir" – his views on succession boxes
- "... put some respect on my guy Fury" – bias
- "Stop hating leave the accomplishments there bro" – no rationale
- "Yo chill stop being a square person" – minor PA
However, this is not so much about his conduct than his edit warring and unwillingness to discuss a style format which could affect a large number of articles going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Rubones reported by User:Vossanova (Result: )
Page: List of AMD graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rubones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Console GPUs */"
- 21:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Console GPUs */"
- 20:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC) ""
- 19:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Console GPUs */"
- 11:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Console GPUs */Informações corretas"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of AMD graphics processing units."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- This user is now making the same reverts under the IP User:2804:431:CFF6:920:2575:4293:6B57:76A3 --Vossanova o< 12:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:IntegratedMedicine reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: )
Page: College of Medicine (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IntegratedMedicine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989524729 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
- 10:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989498931 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
- 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society. References to a previous organisation should certainly be included in history but not in the main summary of the organisation. The College of Medicine is now 10 years old and the current summary is outdated."
- 12:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on College of Medicine (UK)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Looks like this report was a pure waste of my time. Which noticeboard should I report edit warring on, eh? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )
Page: Malankara Metropolitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Malankara Metropolitans (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: [73]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans#Query on the edit in Introduction
Comments:
Please note that Eldhorajan92 is edit-warring against us in 2 articles at once. Diffs are from both articles (5RR in one, 4RR in the other) and he was very recently blocked for edit-warring in a similar situation. Elizium23 (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:2600:1007:B0A6:F797:942F:E86:5506:C81B (Result: No violation)
Page: John E. James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (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:
I do not know how to correctly report, but user Snooganssnoogans is blatantly edit warring the article of John James, has ignored request for a consensus on the talk page, and has taunted me by telling me to use my “real account.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B0A6:F797:942F:E86:5506:C81B (talk)
- Non admin comment: this is false. The article in question has not been edited in two months. Perhaps they meant to link to another page. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed the link. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin) There is no violation here. Snoogans did not go over 3RR. (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- He has made over 3 reverts on the same page within a 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B008:E331:30BF:9996:98BA:62C (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is not true; Snoogans only reverted three times in a 24 hour period as seen on the page's history. IP, kindly notify Snooganssnoogans on their talk page that they have been reported. You may use {{subst:an3 notice}} to do so. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC) - Please provide diffs of the reverts as well.
- That is not true; Snoogans only reverted three times in a 24 hour period as seen on the page's history. IP, kindly notify Snooganssnoogans on their talk page that they have been reported. You may use {{subst:an3 notice}} to do so. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
- He has made over 3 reverts on the same page within a 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B008:E331:30BF:9996:98BA:62C (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- No violation from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Niezginela reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: )
Page: Opus Dei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niezginela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [87]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97][98]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]
Comments:
- SPA making the repeated addition of large a OR/SYNTH section to Opus Dei, repeatedly rejected in talk page discussions yet the user persists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:83.102.203.65 reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Future Nostalgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.102.203.65 (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:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The IP has also added the same incorrect information at Club Future Nostalgia, as seen here (including reverting the removal of their non-factual edits), engaged in edit war at Physical (Dua Lipa song) (as seen here: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4).
Looking at the edit topics and when the IP became active, I now strongly suspect that this is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of the recently banned editor Zhmailik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was adding identical content to the same articles prior to their block.
Pinging other involved editors who have reverted the IP and Zhmailik previously @Carbrera, Alexismata7, Dibsquabs, King G.A, and LOVI33: ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have also been involved with Zhmalik a couple times. Just to note: this IP is rudely spamming mine and King GA's talk pages with "warnings" such as {{subst:uw-error1}}. This IP has broken the 3RR more times than needed. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Update: this IP now thinks it’s ok to impersonate Lil-unique1 and has copy and pasted their signature to the IP talk comments. I don’t know if this will require extra penalty, and I can’t find the right warning template for it. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is another page, Physical (Dua Lipa song), that this IP has broken the 3RR in. Eight reverts in an hour. Look at the page history. Please also note that this user is now spamming my talk page with "warnings". D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Said IP has now been blocked due to sockpuppet investigation here. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked 1 week for sockpuppetry. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Newimpartial reported by User:Sparkle1 (Result: Both warned)
Page: Nicole Maines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [100]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to the ongoing RfC
Comments:
There is currently an RfC ongoing o the talk page of the Nicole Maines article surrounding her birth name. The Rfc must be allowed to conclude no matter how long it takes. The consensus reached must be respected. A single user cannot impose their preferred version on the article when there is an RfC ongoing which they have actively been taking part in. It matters not how strongly the party feels regarding their position. The RfC process must be respected. Multiple users with multiple differing viewpoints have participated and one user cannot simply circumvent the discussion by engaging in the imposition of their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Noting my agreement with Newimpartial's reply below. MOS:DEADNAME is clear that the content should be removed and that this is a BLP issue. No prior RFC or clear consensus existed to enforce keeping material that violates MOS and BLP. Rab V (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Reply by Newinpartial
Please note the edit rationales I provided in the diffs linked above by Sparkle1. The inclusion of the deadname in question is sourced to an interview, which does not satisfy the sourcing requirements set out in WP:BLP. This is true regardless of the broader policy discussion ongoing on the article Talk page. All three of the diffs Sparkle1 provided above fall into the provisions for removing contentious amd poorly sourced material from a BLP, which is excluded from WP:3RR.
Also note that Sparkle1 has been engaged in an edit war on the Nicole Maines page, including the following reverts:
As the last three of those consisted in the re-insertion of contentious material into a BLP and are therefore both Edit Warring and WP:BLP violations, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG sanction may be merited, particularly since their Edit Warring and WP:IDHT behaviour on the page in question is currently ongoing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is not your place to simply impose your preferred version of the article when an RfC on the very issue is ongoing. No matter how much you claim BLP applies in your favour the RfC is discussing if it and MOS:DEADNAME actually apply to support your preferred version or another version. It cannot be you choose to impose your preferred version when your rationale is expressly disputed and is part of the RfC. It was blatant what you were attempting. You were being disruptive and you were trying to force your preferred version of the article. That cannot be allowed and goes against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia no to be a battleground. You chose with your actions to edit war and you and you alone did that. I and another user restored the pre-RfC version. You may dislike that version but it doesn't mean you get to impose your preferred version on the article. The RfC must be respected and allowed to complete. Otherwise going round it makes the RfC and any discussion impossible to have when it is going to be vetoed by yourself by imposing your preferred version.
- I would also like to point out that restoring to a pre-Rfc version when a discussion is ongoing and discussion to reach that consensusversion after a discussion reached that consensus is not edit warring. Failing to engage in discussion and respect and RfC is disruptive, POV pushing and edit warring. You have e only engaged in the behaviour you have to try and impose your preferred version of the article, while discussion is ongoing. That is wrong and Wikipedia must stand against that kind of behaviour.
- Newimpartial seems to be forgetting that they are not the only editor on the page and that they cannot simply impose their preferred version on the article. They may dislike the previous consensus, but there is no question or contention that is was there, the article was stable and had been discussed. To also ignore and attempt to circumvent an ongoing RfC shows contempt for discussion with others. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- On an aside, the diffs provided by Newimpartial regarding myself should be disregarded as they are trying to paint a picture of maliciousness on my part, which does not exist. The first diff provided was on 18 November and related to a user trying to say that on ongoing RfC had reached a consensus not to proceed with a specific option. That was a good-faith edit and was reverted. The user who made that good-faith edit did not then go on a re-revert etc. The next three are reverting Newimpartial's blatant attempts to impose their preferred version on the article on 20 November in circumvention of the ongoing Rfc, in what I consider to be, edits in bad faith. Rfc's must be respected and allowed to continue and conclude. Editors cannot impose their preferred outcome or version while an Rfc has not made any firm conclusions and discussion is still actively ongoing. That is classic disruptive bad faith behaviour. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Newimpartial is also intentionally misrepresenting the sources, there have been multiple secondary sources and primary sources provided regarding the birth name of Nicole Maines. It is important not to take at face value the half-truths being posted here by Newimpartial in an attempt to discredit sources they simply dislike. Newimpartial is not engaging in the discussion any more they are being disruptive by trying to wikilawyer their way to scaring other users to accept their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear: I don't have a "preferred version" - all I was doing was undoing three edits where an editor had re-inserted contentious material without appropriate sourcing, as the edit summaries attached to my diffs (which Sparkle1 provided in this filing) make perfectly clear.
- What Sparkle1 is contributing at great length sounds like WP:OWN behaviour and a defense of (alleged) LOCALCONSENSUS against site-wide policy, but I'll leave it to admins to weigh in on that. Nobody needs to take my unsubstantiated word for anything - just look for yourselves.
- As to
intentionally misrepresenting the sources
I never did that, and it rather sounds like a personal attack. The fact is that the version that Sparkle1 reverted three times to retain includes the DEADNAME in the infobox while sourcing it to an interview, which is not a RS for a contentious fact according to WP:BLP policy.Newimpartial (talk) 00:36 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Sparkle1 and User:Newimpartial are both warned for edit warring. WP:DEADNAME is a link to a section of the WP:MOS, i.e. it is a style guideline. There does not seem to be any actual controversy as to the person's true birth name. The name is cited to an interview with the subject, Nicole Maines, which appeared on ABC television. So there is no issue with quality of sourcing. In other words WP:3RRNO does not exempt from 3RR any additions or removals of the person's birth name from the article. You should both wait for consensus on talk before reverting again. Consider getting the RfC closed by an admin for a dispute which is as intense as this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Secobi reported by User:Bilby (Result: )
Page: Smartmatic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Secobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [109]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]
Comments:
After adding a warning to the user's talk page, they expressed an unwillingness to engage on talk, instead prefering to use edit summaries. [118] - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Brian Bordon reported by User:IJBall (Result: )
Page: Descendants (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brian Bordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [119]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
And likely these previous edits as an IP:
- Diff of 1st warning: Diff
- Diff of 2nd warning: Diff
- Diff of 3rd warning: Diff
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not really applicable, though this previous discussion on the Talk page is directly applicable.
Comments:
Note: This report is not a technical "WP:3RR" report, but is instead of a report of a true "slow-motion edit war". Pretty much like clockwork, this editor shows up about once a month to make an edit they have already been repeatedly reverted on. If you count their pre-account editing as an IP, this goes back 6 months. Editor makes no attempt to discuss, or justify their edit. Just persistent disruptively restoring it. Also, based on their edit history, this pretty much seems to be an WP:SPA. I'm pretty much at my wits' end here. Unfortunately, a short-term block is unlikely to be fruitful, as they seem to make this edit about once a month. I'm inclined to ask for an WP:INDEF based on WP:NOTHERE, but I'm willing to listen to anything whatever Admin sees this suggests. Thanks --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Jontel reported by User:11Fox11 (Result: )
Page: Keep Talking (group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jontel (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:
- [120][121][122] 1st revert
- [123] 2nd revert
- [124] 3rd revert
- [125] 4th revert
- [126] 5th revert
- [127] 6th revert
- [128][129] 7th revert
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware, removed edit warring section warning from their talk page recently.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's all over the talk page
Comments:
This is a new article from November 3rd. In the span of 8 hours, Jontel made seven different reverts, which were challenged by other users he edit warred with. The content differs in each revert, but revolves around removing Holocaust denial and far left ties of this group. Each group of diffs above is separated by other users challenging Jontel. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, this was going on while this was on the front page under "did you know" with the description: "... that the British conspiracy-theory and Holocaust-denial group Keep Talking unites the far right and far left?". Jontel was disrupting, possibly even vandlising, an article displayed on the front page that has significant traffic today. Jontel's edits specifically went after the description in the front page. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)