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 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:Walter Görlitz reported by User:herr chagall (Result: Advice)
Page: Atlanta United FC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user’s reverts:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'
Comments: User:Walter Görlitz has been repeatedly reverting recent edits pertaining to the full club name, which included verified sources. He shows strong WP:OWN; in essence, hardly anybody can edit this article but User:Walter Görlitz himself if it doesn’t align with his personal preferences.
Initially, he demanded a source for the edit. When a first source was provided, he claimed that the name listed only referred to the legal entity, not the team participating in the MLS. When in turn various additional sources—including Atlanta United’s official about section and a book published by the club’s Director of Sports Science— were provided that proved the opposite, User:Walter Görlitz chose to ignore them and maintained his edit-warring behavior, reiterating his unfounded claims to which he failed to present corroborating sources, as can be seen in the discussion on my talk page [1]. He effectively decides which sources are reliable or permitted and interprets what they state, rejecting any that do not support his WP:POV.
There is no apparent valid reason for blocking and reverting the addition of the club’s full name to the article. He has displayed WP:OWN in regard to this article in the past, three years ago [2]. The consensus among football editors was that a club’s full name should generally be included in the article together with the nickname or abbreviated term. [3].
It is worth pointing out that there was no attempt to change the article title or anything that could be construed as misleading or controversial. As with other articles about football clubs, the full name was supposed to be added only, however this has not been possible due to the user’s disruptive reverts. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The only reason to revert the content is that it's not what the club itself uses as a name: https://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs/atlanta-united/ and https://www.atlutd.com/ The editor even did the same at FC Cincinnati at least three times, applying a name that the team itself has indicted "is not to be used in any sporting references to the team, or in any public discussion" and using that source.
- No edit war as the activity has been going on over several days so 3RR has not been broken. Appeals to this new editor to discuss on the article's talk page have gone ignored. A recent request to even take it to the WP:FOOTY project have been similarly ignored, but the editor knows of the project having linked to it in a recent diatribe on their own talk page.
- In short, we have an editor who is trying to make a point, has no ability to accept comments from other editors telling them they are incorrect, and refuses to discuss openly. We have a borderline WP:NOTHERE editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- User resorts to deflection and non sequitur arguments. The club calls itself a football club on its official page: We are called a Football Club because we are more than just a team. The club’s Director of Sports Science, Ryan Alexander, calls the club Atlanta United Football Club (MLS) in his book Complete Conditioning for Soccer. The Atlanta City Council proclaimed an Atlanta United Football Club Day on November 6, 2017, in honor of the club [4]. Sources with relevant news and football related media have been provided that confirm that FC stands for Football Club, which is basically what the entire point of the edit was, to reference said fact. User changes his line of argument along the way, adapting it in response to refutations of his previous claims in order to be able to maintain his unfounded claim and does not shy away from using red herrings.
- Contrary to his claim above, consensus on this matter in favor of referencing the full name along the common name has already been reached three years prior: In the end, the Football Club full name should be referenced even if they only use FC everywhere else. (by User:Koncorde) the article should start "Atlanta United Football Club are ... " and the infobox should have "Atlanta United Football Club" (by User:Jts1882) I support the option 2, such as "Atlanta United FC" in the article title and "Atlanta United FC" or "Atlanta United Football Club" in the lead section. (by User:BaboneCar)
- User chooses to deny/ignore the consensus and acts against it regardless.
- The argument used in the instance of FC Cincinnati doesn’t apply, for the Wikipedia article in question serves an encyclopedic purpose, and thus does not fall under the quoted restriction.
- The last comment by the user unfortunately applies to him entirely. He has a history of applying the tactics mentioned above: [5] [6] [7] on numerous previous occasions.
- User has been warned and blocked repeatedly over the years (quick selection), which means that he is well-informed about Wikipedia rules and knows how to take steps in order to avoid easy detection:
- warned - [8] [9] [10]
- blocked - [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
- spared from being blocked on this occasion due to christmas season - [17]
- This clearly shows that he does not intend to change his disruptive behavior but rather is a repeat violator of wikipedia policies who displays WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has been the subject of numerous lengthy discussions: [18] [19] [20]
- User had been notified about the report but removed my notification from his talk page. [21] - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please focus on the facts. You have decided not to discuss at the proper forum. You are conflating the team's name with a legal entity. Atlanta is probably the better case that Cincinnati, but still, you should discuss with the larger community rather than try to force your way in by trying to get me blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- In name of transparency: have previously had several run-ins with Walter. In most of his day to day stuff I have no issue, but then he will occasionally get an absolute WP:OWN issue coming up and I have either been a Uninvolved editor sliding in from being asked to on the WP:FOOTBALL project page, or been the one to run into the issue on the talk page. It then becomes very much a WP:BLUDGEON on the talk page if you can get past the initial recurring 3RR / BRD process intact. Unfortunately I can't remember specific instances, but I have no doubt I contributed at some point to a warning he has received (on weight of probabilities). Walters general attitude isn't always conducive to free exchange of ideas, can be very arbitrary as to what sources that he chooses to recognise as relevant, and dismissive of others - but I don't think it rises to WP:NOTHERE or similar. He just has strong opinions that when faced with disagreement he defends / attacks a little more pointedly than seems to be required at each point of the discussion and escalates to a good level of bloody mindedness (and there are a few guilty of that who are still otherwise fine Wikipedia contributers). I wouldn't support any prolonged action, but I do wish Walter would look into historical discussions and points made and take them onboard. Koncorde (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: No block. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break WP:3RR. There does seem to be a long term edit war. User:Walter Görlitz and User:Herr chagall are advised to open an RfC, or to create an explicit talk discussion to decide between 'FC' and 'Football Club'. Continued reverting may lead to sanctions. The link provided above to a 2018 discussion does not seem to have any clear outcome, so it's hard to perceive a consensus there. The title of the club that is written on their current logo is 'Atlanta United FC'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Taking a logo as a deciding reference is something I wouldn’t have expected, given all the other official sources. There was no goal to decide on one of the two options exclusively, as I tried pointing out, but rather include the full name. Given the user’s conduct and documented history of behavior, I shall invest my time in different endeavors. Cheers. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ed, one follow-up question: shouldn’t the lead text and article title about the second team be changed as well, since the current logo says ATL UTD 2, so »Atlanta United 2« is incorrect and should really be ATL UTD 2? - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is why we don't primary source stuff with WP:OR. Badges and branding is routinely changed. The whole idea behind the naming of articles is that it is based on some idea of permanence (or at least longevity) demonstrated by this comment about my own home town team who have changed the way they write their name seemingly every time they order new stationery. Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ed, one follow-up question: shouldn’t the lead text and article title about the second team be changed as well, since the current logo says ATL UTD 2, so »Atlanta United 2« is incorrect and should really be ATL UTD 2? - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Springee (Result: No violation)
Page: Jared Kushner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [22] - original addition of content
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]
Comments:
Davefelmer added content to the Jared Kushner article related to the Abraham Accords. Part of that addition was that Kushner was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Snoogan's first revert was to remove that nomination. I restored that content. The second revert was to change the tone/implication of the sentence by modifying the sentence with a "poison the well" type comment. Snoogan's edit summary suggests the intent was only to say who made the nomination, Alan Dershowitz. However, they also added that Dershowitz defended Trump during his first impeachment. That information is not relevant to the nomination and changes the implication of the sentence I restored. Absent being able to remove the content as Snoogan's wished, they sought to poison the well with an off topic inclusion that, absent additional information suggests the nomination may not have been based on merit. Springee (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is not second revert. The edit rephrased[26] the content so that it reflects what the cited source says: "The two former deputies to then-President Donald Trump were nominated by American attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was eligible to do so in his capacity as a professor emeritus of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz defended Trump in his first impeachment trial last year"[27]. The claim that the "information is not relevant to the nomination" is false. A Trump administration official being nominated for something by another person involved in the Trump administration is relevant. That is after all what the cited source highlights as pertinent info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of the intent of any of the edits, there isn't a 1RR violation here. This is not the correct forum (and I'm unconvinced that there's enough here for other forums either, though YMMV). I won't close this yet though to see if any other admin wants to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- If someone adds a sentence, it is removed and then restored, why isn't a change to that sentence considered a revert? Where is that line if not at changing the sentence (other than m type minor corrections)? Springee (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because the second one didn't remove the re-added material, it only added further to it. ("A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"). And yes, this is one of the reasons why I've never been convinced that 1RR works well on contentious articles. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- If someone adds a sentence, it is removed and then restored, why isn't a change to that sentence considered a revert? Where is that line if not at changing the sentence (other than m type minor corrections)? Springee (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please feel free to alert me if this is not the proper forum for this, but I am concerned about Springee making false claims about edit warring and breaking 1RR/3RR warnings. They similarly made a false complaint about me on another page related to conservative politics (in that case Andy Ngo), seemingly ignorant of the difference between a revert and an edit. This is despite having more than a decade of experience on Wikipedia and a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Wiki policy at other times. I'm concerned this is part of an extended pattern of litigiousness and WP:LAWYERING on their part that serves to spook other editors and dissuade them from editing on pages Springee is passionate about Noteduck (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- No violation – As noted by User:Black Kite, diff #2 is not a revert. It was the addition of new text (mentioning Alan Dershowitz) that was never in the article before, so 1RR was not broken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
User:24.217.146.104 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Semi)
Page: LP1 (Liam Payne album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.217.146.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
- 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
- 01:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
- 22:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"
- 22:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */Removed malignance unrelated to the content of the record, rather fueled by the author's ulterior motives and irrationality towards the artist"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:91.124.116.230 reported by User:Nearlyevil665 (Result: Semi)
Page: 2021 World Wushu Championships ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.124.116.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "try to read what is navbox"
- 22:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017112591 by Sjö (talk) - LOL try to read what is navbox"
- 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017108076 by Jusdafax (talk) - do you know something about navboxes?"
- 16:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1016796048 by Jusdafax (talk) - reason?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 World Wushu Championships."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User also keeps blanking their talk page nearlyevil665 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- This user has added the text of navbox repeatedly, instead of the calling of navbox! Blatant violation of WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- User has made yet another revert today and is not responsive to multiple warnings. Keeps blanking their talk page. Three different users have already reverted their consistent additions to the page. nearlyevil665 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you know something about navboxes? Or see the button "Revert" only? What is wrong with edit? 91.124.116.230 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Three different users have objected to your edits and you have violated the three-revert rule by consistently adding said content despite the objections from multiple users. You have also on multiple occasions blanked your talk page to hide warnings from multiple users. I strongly suggest you read on the three-revert rule and participate in the discussion on the article's talk page instead of consistently violating Wikipedia policy. nearlyevil665 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have a right to do it per WP:BLANKING. What I should to discuss if there were NO any explanations of the reverts reasons?! The navbox should be called but not copied in the text. Don't agree? Try to read WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX first. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you know something about navboxes? Or see the button "Revert" only? What is wrong with edit? 91.124.116.230 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- As of this time your edits have been reverted by five different Wikipedia users. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I strongly recommend taking your objections there. nearlyevil665 19:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that five users (including you) don't understand nothing about navboxes. I strongly recommend taking your objections, not only fake warnings. "My revert was because other five users reverted"? It's a shame for you. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- As of this time your edits have been reverted by five different Wikipedia users. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I strongly recommend taking your objections there. nearlyevil665 19:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two weeks due to 3RR violation by the IP editor. Personally, I wonder why the navbox shouldn't be used as a navbox, but the matter is up to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Prasadmarur reported by User:245CMR (Result: Partial block 48 hours)
Page: Vishvakarma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prasadmarur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [29]
- [30]
- [31]
- [32]
- [33]
- [34]
- [35]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see revision history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]
Comments:
The user is not willing to listen to me despite my efforts. He is removing the neutrality of the lead and adding his own POV. If he has sources, then he must add his content in history section in a brief style as per WP:MOS. Don't forget to ping me please..245CMR.•👥📜 06:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As this involves a new user, I issued a short partial block from Vishvakarma but added a warning re EW + Copyvio + NLT. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq:ok
User:Askelaadden reported by User:ABIDALAA (Result: Filer warned)
Page: 2020–2021 Western Saharan clashes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Askelaadden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes&oldid=1016696371
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see revision history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes#Debate_on_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askelaadden#Undoing_editing_in_2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes
Comments:
The user is not willing to listen to me despite my efforts. i try my best since april 8 to avoid escalation into editing war , by talking in his talk page , and article talk page , but no gain , He is removing the neutrality of the casualties claim , in favor of POV of one parties in conflict , despite his own source contradicting UN own statement and UNSC . suggesting that peace keeping mission is hiding or holding the numbers of true casualties .
User:ABIDALAA (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:ABIDALAA is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at 2020–2021 Western Saharan clashes without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The thread on the article talk suggests that ABIDALAA may not fully understand how the WP:Reliable sources policy works on Wikipedia. I also advise User:Askelaadden to read WP:NOT3RR since their reverts are not excused under that rule. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I do understand how WP:Reliable sources policy works on Wikipedia , issue is sourcre contradicted it own citation , UN , as mention in talk page Instead user claim that UN hide the numbers of casualties, perhaps this is first time UN does such thing , how can you ignore this ? User:ABIDALAA (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Nonameonlyusername reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Hinduism in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nonameonlyusername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC) to 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 15:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Don't revert such a big information without discussion and the most part of article is right."
- 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "corrected inline template."
- Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC) to 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 13:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017202982 by Kautilya3 (talk) There were alot of good edits, along with meaningful and correct well cited information added with alot of hardwork. Don't remove it such like this."
- 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Hindu minority State/Union Territory in India */ removed disambiguation."
- Consecutive edits made from 12:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC) to 12:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 12:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Notes */ Added topic of cuisine."
- 12:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Thanks for the edit, but please dont r/v good edits."
- 12:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Second Urbanisation (600-200 BCE) and early Hinduism (200 BCE-320 CE) */ I think the sub-heading was too long."
- 12:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Hindus development in various fields */"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC) to 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 11:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Re-added researched part and also removed some pervious faults."
- 11:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Also added the reference and details for cow slaughter laws in India."
- 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Decreasing Hindu population */ R/v some old edits."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hinduism in India."
- 12:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hinduism in India."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user has added 67,300 bytes of content to Hinduism in India over two days and is essentially refusing to discuss it. See User talk:Nonameonlyusername#Rise and re-establishment of Hindu identity? and Talk:Hinduism in India#Mindless POV expansion. I have lost track of how many reverts he has made. But he continues to reinstate his content despite the objections being raised. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
User:103.246.39.31 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)
Page: United States Marshals Service ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.246.39.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [40]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]
Diff at ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [47]
Comments:
Straight 4RR vio, user shows no willingness to stop reverting or discuss, as their comments have descended into personal attacks. - wolf 02:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- You have also failed to discuss.103.246.39.31 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think your talk page speaks for itself. - wolf 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:JShark reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Warned)
Page: Elon Musk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JShark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Not sure what to put here. Sorry.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [48] - This instance is not a straight revert, but JShark removed all content recently added by one user.
- [49]
- [50]
- [51]
- [52]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] specifically for the Elon Musk page, and a second warning for another page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]
Comments:
Although I was not involved in the reverting of this content, I was active in the discussion started by BeŻet regarding this edit war. JShark has been on this platform for 4 years now and should know better. ~ HAL333 03:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:JShark is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Dabaqabad reported by User:Rashicy (Result: Both warned)
Page: Port of Berbera ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Dabaqabad [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [55]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Comments:
This user will not listen to me I tried warning him I don’t want to partake in a edit war with him but he refuses to listen [62], he then tried to change the image and made it look like he was telling me not to start a edit war,[63]. This user keeps on adding original info to the Berbera port article and as you can see it is not sourced,[64] I’ve warned him around 3 times and after he reverted my edits 3 times I had enough. I tried my best but he still keeps reverting my edits.
- Result: Both Dabaqabad and Rashicy are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again without reaching consensus on the talk page, which now lacks a thread on the dispute. Academic Challenger (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:웬디러비 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: No action)
Page: Korean War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 웬디러비 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [65]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] deleted by User with incomprehensible comment: [70]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]
Comments:
웬디러비 has blanked their UP and UTP and changed status to Retired, so I assume that this can be closed and I can revert their last edit to the status quo ante?. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: No action, since they made only three reverts. But in any case, the reported editor's changes have already been reverted by someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Maneesh reported by User:Vaticidalprophet (Result: Warned)
Page: Intersex ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maneesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017342612 by Vaticidalprophet (talk)Nope, 'intersex' just isn't a MED:RS term, it's quite vague. You can see the cites to Fausto-Sterling in this article which include XXX and XXYY."
- 06:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017337426 by Trankuility (talk)Why does what was decided on that page mean anything for this one? Triple X syndrome is on a lot of reliable sources that list intersex conditions, as is XXYY. There are many sources for these claims."
- 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017331526 by Vaticidalprophet (talk)Intersex is rather vague umbrella term. Easy to find sources that include triple X and XXYY etc."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Discussion on the talk page for Disorders of sex development led to consensus that some conditions previously listed in that article and Intersex were inappropriate for the articles, and I was encouraged by @Crossroads to make the changes for the latter. Maneesh has disputed these changes and reverted them when inserted by me or @Trankuility, and has been unresponsive when explained the situation in edit summaries (and also seems to have some misunderstanding of what conditions were discussed, despite attempts to discuss/resolve). Vaticidalprophet 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting this, User:Vaticidalprophet. Trankuility (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Maneesh is warned they may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Maudslay II reported by User:Free1Soul (Result: )
Page: Zrarieh massacre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maudslay II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [74]
Diffs of the user's reverts: (this a 1RR violation, page has edit notice)
- [75] (also personal attack), additional revert to [76]
- [77]
- [78], this is 10 hours after revert 2 above, so this breaks 1rr again.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Alerted ARBPIA. Then warned of breaking 1RR and personal attacks on this page- [79]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]
Comments:
Page is under WP:ARBPIA 1RR. Maudslay II has been alerted and warned of 1rr, but still did the last revert afterwarrs, breaking 1rr.
Maudslay II is adding categories and content not supported by Western sources, who call this a raid and say that the target were Amal militant fighters after a large car bomb the day before.
Maudslay has also been moving warring: [81] [82]
Also an IP, that previously edit warred for Maudslay as pointed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maudslay II removed the Afd notice disruptively: [83].
Maudslay is warring against consensus.Free1Soul (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:2601:14A:C100:1B80:44C3:4E4C:793:BCAD reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: )
Page: Richard David Semba ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:2601:14A:C100:1B80:44C3:4E4C:793:BCAD (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]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Sorry, long ago I reported the last time, but this will get solved soon enough anyway. If anyone is interested just check this edit history. The IP triggered the cluebot several times and leaves the article in a worse shape than before.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Mahatmakaashirwad reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: 2020 Delhi riots ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mahatmakaashirwad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [84]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] (informal) [90] (formal, and DS notice)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Note, they are now at 5RR and are very much a SPA that keeps marking huge changes (ver POV ones) as minor edits.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
User:75.118.112.126 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Semi)
Page: Hunter Street (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.118.112.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "ok I am quitting with most of it expect I still don't get how a official page is not a credible source but this source but hunter street is not over here is the official blooming media page who make the show with a photo from filming and talking about filming which because it is the creator of the show is a credible source https://bloomingmedia.nl/"
- 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017563022 by IJBall (talk) i got multiple other sources for it"
- 12:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017497838 by Amaury (talk) ok maybe I am just stupid but how is something from one of nickelodeon's official pages not enough to add to the article as the sneak peak proves season four is coming"
- 01:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017484682 by Magitroopa (talk) I think I fixed this it is actual information the only errors from my edits I fixed in this except the link from the YouTube video which I don't know how to properly link but i am asking for help on how to properly link it and if you copy and paste it to your browser from right here www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJscpzRDa8c you will see it is legitamate"
- 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017482596 by IJBall (talk) because it was reverted for not being properly sourced i think i properly sourced it this time because of the fact the source is from Nickelodeon UK's Youtube account i don't know how to properly source youtube video's i think i did it right but if i did not can you please create a talk thing on my page showing how to properly source it but I think I fixed the sourcing"
- 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC) "I updated stuff for season four and season four was confirmed today officially with episode one of season four being released on Nick UK's YouTube channel in the form of a sneak peak but it is listed as a full episode and from one of nickelodeon's official channels is a pretty credible source and here is the link for the video I also left it in a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJscpzRDa8c"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Warning at User talk:75.118.112.126#April 2021. Discussion at Talk:Hunter Street (TV series)#Hunter Street season four. Amaury • 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Declanhx reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: )
Page: State v. Chauvin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Declanhx (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: [95]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]
Comments:
The user has already come off one block.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Also maybe an SPA (One edit about 3 years ago, then editing in one topic over the last week or so) I wonder if it fact its a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)