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 than 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 the 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. |
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 User:StAnselm reported by User:Adrian Fey (Result: protected for one week)
- 2 User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: No violation)
- 3 User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)
- 4 User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Bonner16 (Result: no violation)
- 5 User:Bookworm857158367 reported by User:Anotherwikipedianuser (Result: No action necessary)
- 6 User:45.222.28.101 reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: blocked)
- 7 User:Themanhascome reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Users warned)
- 8 User:RockHippie reported by User:Zoolver (Result: 31 hours)
- 9 User:Signedzzz reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: both blocked)
- 10 User:TheRingess reported by User:206.214.54.16 (Result: no violation)
- 11 User:2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: No action)
- 12 User:173.53.32.131 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)
- 13 User:Solkarn reported by User:Paulmlieberman (Result: Warned)
- 14 User:93.177.75.254 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
User:StAnselm reported by User:Adrian Fey (Result: protected for one week)
- Page
- Fraser Anning ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 891137192 by StAnselm (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE - this has already been determined to be a BLP violation (TW)"
- 22:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891065987 by Adrian Fey (talk) - that is certainly NOT the consensus on the talk page"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Fraser Anning. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated 3RR attempts to remove sourced biographical material, despite the fact Senator Anning's quote about the so called "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory was cited verbatim and the fact that said canard has been verified to be anti-semitic in nature by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors rightwing extremism in the United States. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I had claimed a BLP exemption for my reverts. An uninvolved administrator (User:Abecedare) had already noted that this contentious material must not be restored without consensus. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Except that said extract from the speech was already presented at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and thus said event happened in reality, therefore it is not libel to describe Senator Anning's actions in this manner. The fact that you repeatedly reverted legitimate edits by contributors attempting to reinstate said paragraph (With the original even going as far as to shift his sources in order to pass BLP standards) does not help your case either, and did escalate to borderline editwarring on numerous occassions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- StAnselm has continued to edit war and has now broken 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you've weighed in to continue to reinstate the BLP violation. Did you read the admin note on the talk page? I've continued to remove the contentious material per WP:BLPREMOVE. I have been claiming the BLP exemption to 3RR which is designed for this sort of situation. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- StAnselm has continued to edit war and has now broken 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Page protected. Protected for one week. Hopefully, that's enough time to sort out the consensus. As mentioned, another admin has already instructed editors regarding the the blp issue, so no action on the 3rr front. El_C 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: The editor is not just removing that which they claim is a BLP violation when they do these reverts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Or, in the spirit of Che Guevera himself, after full protecting the article of a racist moron who found himself in parliament after receiving a full 19 votes because his other racist compatriot got kicked out and they had to get someone to replace him, you can simply refuse to respond. Nice one. What the fuck do we have WP:ADMINACCT for anyway? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now, now. Deep breath. I simply have not noticed the response, because I was busy elsewhere. Anyway, the reverting is over as the page is protected now and if you feel there's a problem with part of that, you are free to make an edit request, which I'm sure another admin will attend to, eventually. El_C 08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Bite me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- You need to take a breather. This is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct yourself. El_C 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- +1.
"in the spirit of Che Guevera himself"
indeed? I suggest a nice walk in the park. You'll feel better. -- Begoon 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)- @Begoon: I understand how the reference may be lost on the average passerby. Here's why I brought it up - [1] - my anger being that the person they profess to admire wouldn't approve of the blase fire and forget way they chose to use their community granted power. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sarcasm is hard to understand at the best of times, and I'm not the clearest communicator. Sorry for the misunderstanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- +1.
- You need to take a breather. This is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct yourself. El_C 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Bite me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now, now. Deep breath. I simply have not noticed the response, because I was busy elsewhere. Anyway, the reverting is over as the page is protected now and if you feel there's a problem with part of that, you are free to make an edit request, which I'm sure another admin will attend to, eventually. El_C 08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Or, in the spirit of Che Guevera himself, after full protecting the article of a racist moron who found himself in parliament after receiving a full 19 votes because his other racist compatriot got kicked out and they had to get someone to replace him, you can simply refuse to respond. Nice one. What the fuck do we have WP:ADMINACCT for anyway? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: No violation)
- Page
- Jack Lowden ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891204934 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) Per WP:BRD, get WP:CONSENSUS for these changes rather than re-reverting."
- 10:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891199790 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) per WP:BRD, please discuss and get WP:CONSENSUS for these bold changes."
- 07:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 889815751 by Softlavender (talk): Undiscussed changes (TW)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:BRD */ new section"
- 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:BRD */"
- 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Lowden. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 10:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ new section"
- 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
- 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ more"
- 11:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
- 11:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */"
- Comments:
The reverting editor is repeatedly citing WP:BRD, when our policy explicitly states that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and mentions, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." In addition, I began a talk page discussion, but the user chose not to explain their repeated reverts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- No violation. You need four revert to exceed 3rr. That said, I'm a bit mystified as to why the new addition was reverted. El_C 11:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Softlavender says that: ":Your reverts were not an improvement, they were inaccurate, and they were not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. They were unexplained, they made the article clearly worse, and there was no element that was an improvement." Do you agree with that, El_C? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, she must have added that comment while I was writing mine. Personally, I have no opinion, but more details would be helpful. El_C 11:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Softlavender says that: ":Your reverts were not an improvement, they were inaccurate, and they were not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. They were unexplained, they made the article clearly worse, and there was no element that was an improvement." Do you agree with that, El_C? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why Krimuk2.0 has filed this report, particularly since there has been no 3RR violation. He has failed to explain, much less make a case for, his changes but instead is edit-warring to preserve these unexplained changes, even though he has been reminded of WP:BRD. Meanwhile, he is blatantly WP:CANVASSING his wiki-friends on the talkpage rather than explaining or making a case for his changes. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)
Page: Jack Lowden ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [2]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
Comments:
- As mentioned above, rather than making any attempt to explain or make a case for his edits, the user (who has already been previously blocked for edit-warring) is simply battlegrounding, blatantly canvassing, and edit-warring to ram them through, and has now violated 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- No violation. As mentioned, the first edit is the original addition, not a revert. El_C 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, that is incorrect. Please see WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The user has now made 6 (series) of consecutive edits that undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The first and the last two of of your above-mentioned diffs had nothing to do with "undo[ing] other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part". The first was my original edit, which you reverted; the last two were an MoS correction and removal of puffery. As previously said, please don't try and misinform. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand what undoing means. WP:RV is clear: "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit." El_C 11:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:3RR says. 3RR is what is being reported here. If you do not understand 3RR, I will create a thread on WP:AN for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Edit-warring =/= 3RR... ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is WP:3RRN, and in fact WP:EDITWARRING is the same page as WP:3RR. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond the problem of your misunderstanding of what a revert is (you need four to exceed 3rr), is the problem that you've yet to explain what was "inaccurate" about the edits you contested. El_C 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- He has made six so far, and five of them were within less than 2 hours (see new links above). WP:3RR says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (italics mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- A one-time removal of longstanding text, in and of itself, does not count as a revert. El_C 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. What part of "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" do you not understand? Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would make any removal of text a revert. El_C 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not interpret 3RR this way. El_C 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then you are in error. What it says is very clear and not subject to misinterpretation except by deliberately ignoring what it specifically states. Not only that, it's a policy, and a brightline. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then we are at an impasse, because I interpret the policy differently from you. El_C 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- You believe what the policy says is not what it means. If you belive that, then please go to the talkpage of the policy and have it re-written to say what you want it to say rather than what it does say.
Even beyond that, whether or not you agree that Krimuk2.0's first block of edits was a revert according to 3RR, he subsequently made five more reverts (please see the additional links added above after you added the result to the header), and they were all within less than two hours. Can you please view those edits and comment/act on them? Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- You believe what the policy says is not what it means. If you belive that, then please go to the talkpage of the policy and have it re-written to say what you want it to say rather than what it does say.
- Then we are at an impasse, because I interpret the policy differently from you. El_C 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then you are in error. What it says is very clear and not subject to misinterpretation except by deliberately ignoring what it specifically states. Not only that, it's a policy, and a brightline. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not interpret 3RR this way. El_C 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would make any removal of text a revert. El_C 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. What part of "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" do you not understand? Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- A one-time removal of longstanding text, in and of itself, does not count as a revert. El_C 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- He has made six so far, and five of them were within less than 2 hours (see new links above). WP:3RR says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (italics mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Edit-warring =/= 3RR... ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:3RR says. 3RR is what is being reported here. If you do not understand 3RR, I will create a thread on WP:AN for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, that is incorrect. Please see WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The user has now made 6 (series) of consecutive edits that undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is a very straightforward situation. Not counting the first edits by Krimuk2.0, they have reverted three times. Softlavender has also reverted three times. The 5th and 6th diffs added by Softlavender are two of the consecutive edits that are part of Krimuk2.0's last revert. They do not count as additional reverts. There can be no argument about that. Thus, the only issue is whether Krimuk2.0's first edits count. This issue has arisen many times before, and administrators have different views. AFAIK, it has never been resolved, and it ain't gonna be resolved on the noticeboard (and probably never on the policy talk page). Softlavender, give it up. Your conduct here is overly aggressive. You and Krimuk2.0 have both edit-warred regardless of who started it or how many times the article was edited by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Bonner16 (Result: no violation)
Page: Liverpool John Lennon Airport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Comments: User:Charlesdrakew is involved in edit warring with different editors (including myself) across several airport pages. He continually disrupts the pages by removing future destinations, claiming they are spam or promotional material. However, they comply with the templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content 3.4 [21] and are properly referenced. User:Charlesdrakew refuses to engage in proper discussion, either on the respective Airport Talk pages or the Airport Project Talk page [22]. The fact that he does not apply his 'policy' across all airport pages only serves to show his prejudice against several specific airport pages and renders them inconsistent with all other airport pages on Wikipedia. User:Bonner16 (talk) 17:40, 06 April 2019 (UTC)
- No violation of 3RR. And user seems to respond promptly and courteously to queries on their talk page - see User talk:Charlesdrakew#Reversion for example. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Bookworm857158367 reported by User:Anotherwikipedianuser (Result: No action necessary)
Page: Lady Louise Windsor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
Several reverts without good argumentation and refusal to discuss it or throwing the onus of discussing on me. He has a history of edit-warring on this article. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I referred you to the discussion on the talk page and asked you to discuss it there before reverting again, which you did not do. I’d still suggest that is the best place for the discussion to take place rather than here. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: You didn't ask, you gave an order, when you are were the reverting user in the first place. And I don't take orders like that. You were the first reverting, you start the discussion, not the other way around. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- There’s already a discussion on the talk page, which is where this conversation probably belongs if you want other interested input. Once you knew someone disagreed with your edit, the talk page is the best place to discuss it without continuing to restore your edit. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: The same would apply to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- So why don’t we go discuss it there instead of here? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: You would have to start it yourself. I won't give you an order to do that. Either you want to do that or you don't. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please discuss this further on the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: You would have to start it yourself. I won't give you an order to do that. Either you want to do that or you don't. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- So why don’t we go discuss it there instead of here? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: The same would apply to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- There’s already a discussion on the talk page, which is where this conversation probably belongs if you want other interested input. Once you knew someone disagreed with your edit, the talk page is the best place to discuss it without continuing to restore your edit. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bookworm857158367: You didn't ask, you gave an order, when you are were the reverting user in the first place. And I don't take orders like that. You were the first reverting, you start the discussion, not the other way around. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I referred you to the discussion on the talk page and asked you to discuss it there before reverting again, which you did not do. I’d still suggest that is the best place for the discussion to take place rather than here. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since the reported editor is willing to engage in discussion on the talk page, I don't see the need for any action here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: I agree. User:Bookworm857158367 started the discussion on the talk page and asked me politely to participate (albeit without pinging me), which I agreed. You can consider this closed. Thank you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:45.222.28.101 reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: blocked)
Page: ACT! for America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.222.28.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [24]
- [25] (..."I will just keep re-adding until you just edit (some) info and not just push a propagandist opinion. "...)
- [26] (note personal attack)
- [27]
- [28] (..."I can do this all day - I have an automated system being setup that will just keep changing the article...")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Edit summaries indicate editor is not acting in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Themanhascome reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Users warned)
Page: Taras Bulba-Borovets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Themanhascome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]
Comments:
The new user readily joined the old "holy war"; blanked the warning from his talk page: [37]--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Both users have been sternly warned by User:DeltaQuad a few minutes before this report was made, and no further reverts have continued. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
User:RockHippie reported by User:Zoolver (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Jill McCormick ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are sockpuppets of RockHippie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/889071132
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Three reverts in 20 minutes. Ignored suggestion about finding a source and then ignored message on user talk page to stop edit warring. I suspect User:RockHippie, Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are the same person. Same edits/reverts for the same claim without source ("and three brothers") since March 28. Zoolver (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The IP range 2601:702:4202:5310::/64 was Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. No comment on whether User:RockHippie is engaging in anonymous socking, but I did make it a hardblock to prevent any logged in editing from the same range. You can refer to WP:SPI if you believe a sockpuppetry investigation is warranted. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Signedzzz reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: both blocked)
Page: Philippine Drug War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [47]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [50] (removal of content)
- [54] (removal of same content)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]
Comments:
User persistently removes arrests information from the infobox of the article. Please see Talk:Philippine_Drug_War on details. In addition, the user has vindictively renamed the talk page section into "Trolling". —Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Both Signedzzz and Sanglahi86 have violated WP:3RR on this article. Signedzzz's actions on the talk page are also troubling. I have blocked both editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
User:TheRingess reported by User:206.214.54.16 (Result: no violation)
Page: Siddha Yoga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRingess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&oldid=886552142
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=891000618
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889754308
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889632404
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889606870
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889592620
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889648522
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siddha_Yoga&diff=889597372&oldid=856835955
Comments:
Siddha Yoga is widely recognized as a cult in many public sources over the last several decades. I happened to hear about this and was looking at the Wikipedia page but didn't see any mention. So I made a new section. It turns out they did cover some of this under "History" sandwiched between unrelated paragraphs about the group's history. I removed what I added and pulled this into a new section called controversy and added some. This was edited and removed. I tried to use the talk page, I warned them of the 3 revert rule, and finally they agreed to "compromise" and put controvery as a subsection of history. This was satisfactory to me the text included was only what had already been on the page. Then a few days later they reverted their "compromise" saying it was fine previously. This same user has a history in this article of reverting any changes which bring this topic up. While filling out this form I noticed they have previously reverted changes to try to make them seem less credible or otherwise push any discussion of this side of the organization out of the article. This person seems to be clearly biased in favor of this organization and attempts to claim anyone adding this information is being "non neutral" which is what they're doing. They shouldn't be allowed to edit this page anymore. 206.214.54.16 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is no edit warring by TheRingess here. However I would urge TheRingess to discuss this on the talk page with the OP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
User:2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: No action)
- Page
- Red Curtain Trilogy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Nothing to discuss. Provide meaningful sources then we can move forward. So far you have nothing."
- 22:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Take a look at the talk page. This was brought up 8 years ago. No one objected/engaged in discussion then. Where are YOUR sources that establish this as an actual trilogy worthy of an article???"
- 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Please don't reinstate pages that lack independent reliable sources."
- 21:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891425875 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "what a load of bollocks. the only person to describe these as a trilogy is the director and everyone else just jumps on the bandwagon. not notable for separate article."
- 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "←Redirected page to Baz Luhrmann"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
- 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
- 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
- 22:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Refuses to follow WP:BRD in full. I've tried discussing on my talk page here but they refuse to acknowledge my points, and have made a personal attack. Another editor has stepped in, but they have continued. They consistently replace the page with a redirect to Baz Luhrmann, saying that sources are "unreliable" and citing an issue resolved 8 years ago. They have violated the 3-revert rule (as the selected contribs show). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Correction. The above user has not attempted to engage in discussion and has refused to respond to my valid questions on their talk page, preferring instead to simply issue "warnings" and report me, rather than actually evaluating and responding to the point I make. The issue from 8 years ago remains unresolved. No independent sources establish these 3 films as an actual trilogy that requires a separate article. This was just a packaging gimmmick for a dvd release. I also refute the accusation that I made any personal attack. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was a bit preoccupied with you continuing to revert despite being told to stop and discuss. And I was going to respond until you made a jab at me, so to speak - you're not supposed to comment on contributors, just content, when having a civil discussion on Wikipedia.AzureCitizen has also told you to stop. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Preoccupied? That's nonsense. I had stopped reverting long before. You had plenty of time to respond to my points, but instead ran off here. I'm still waiting for a meaningful reply when you're ready....2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- And at no point have I commented on you. I have made no personal attack at all. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems Schazjmd gave some evidence on my talk page (kudos to him), if you don't mind taking a look. And I'm fairly certain "I guess using templates to hand out "internet bans" makes you feel important?" (from my talk page) is a personal attack. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- ... and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Don't be so offended. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
And to answer the question on WP:BOOMERANG - I called on the edit warrior to take making the article to WP:AfD or a similar venue, since doing something as drastic as making it a redirect without consensus isn't exactly smiled upon. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- But where is your response to the points I raised? Stop focusing on trying to dish out internet bans and engage in the actual discussion as I am trying to do... relying on another editor's rather underwhelming google search result is simply not enough. Not a single one of those references actually establishes any notability for this "trilogy" (note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key). 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- So:
"note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key"
- Ironic, considering that in context the article says it's not a trilogy, but rather a grouping of films by a director that use a similar style. I'm considering renaming it to "Red Curtian Trilogy (box set)" to avoid confusion (which is what this entire fiasco seems to be borne out of) - I'm not saying I disagree on the point that it's not a trilogy, I'm just pointing out that even if its not a trilogy, it's still notable. The Google Scholar sources do prove this, if actually read into. Also, again, drastic things such as blanking an entire article and adding a redirect is something we don't do without first establishing consensus between ourselves to do so. Ignorance of the fact this is a community project and that no one person has the power to do drastic things on their own (without being bestowed the power to do so in select cases in a RfA) doesn't mean you're not immune to that reality.
- The reason you've been reported here is quite clear-cut: You violated Wikipedia policy by persistently reverting others edits instead of following WP:BRD. Even if you've stopped now, the violation still exists.
- Result: No action. It appears that the IP has stopped reverting. If there is still a concern that this is not a valid topic for an article, take it to WP:AFD. Renaming the article to Red Curtain Trilogy (box set) is conceivable but that might not be important enough for an article. The mentions in Google Scholar don't quickly decide the matter either way. It is at least a trilogy for marketing purposes, but maybe not for more than that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User:173.53.32.131 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)
Page: The Secret Life of Pets 2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.53.32.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was warned twice in their user talk
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User claiming with no source that these are the names of the characters these actors will be voicing. Similar situation to that one months ago that ended up in me having my username changed -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring to add unsourced information about the voice roles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Solkarn reported by User:Paulmlieberman (Result: Warned)
Page: Wakhan Corridor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solkarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]
Comments:
This user makes the same changes every day or so starting March 31 (initially changing it on March 21, after which User:Fish_and_karate semi-protected the page). This user also edits a page Wakhan which is much less viewed, and which, perhaps, should be merged with the Wakhan Corridor page. The apparent reason is to assert a claim by Pakistan to this territory. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Result: User:Solkarn is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the Wakhan Corridor article unless they have obtained prior consensus on the talk page. The reliable sources are in agreement that the Wakhan Corridor is part of Afghanistan. Hence, edits such as this one appear to be inserting wrong information, perhaps through some nationalistic motive. The user may believe that the area should belong to Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User:93.177.75.254 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
- Page
- Bunny FuFuu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 93.177.75.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891528754 by Praxidicae (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891525988 by Praxidicae (talk) Take the criticism to the talk page, before you undo primary sourced edits"
- 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Gaming Romances */"
- 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891518951 by Praxidicae (talk) This is balanced with firsthand sources"
- 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Romantic Engagements"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bunny FuFuu. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This is actually possibly just blatant vandalism, continuing to add blpviolations stating that the subject is in a sexual relationship with someone with no source that supports this (and also, no relevance.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)