Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page-blocked from the article for two weeks)
Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Efbrazil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ In another attempt at consensus, I made it clear that american companies are the ones who are importing goods. If you don't like the source at all then we need to delete this information entirely, but we should not be mischaracterizing the source. The source makes it perfectly clear that importers pay the tax."
- 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088695359 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a simple fact that is well sourced to CNN. Are you disagreeing with facts? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. If you have a disagreement with the facts, please state what they are."
- 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Yes, it was widely criticized as a failure by liberal and business-oriented interests at the time. I added the fact that Biden maintained the tariffs along with a source to that effect."
- 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ The article is very clear that it is not all american companies that pay, it is american importers of chinese goods. Simply saying "american companies" without clarifying that it is companies doing imports is obfuscation and bias. I added the quote from the article to make the context clear. If you want different wording, please include the key piece of information that it is importers paying, not all companies."
- 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Removing value judgments of Trump Tariffs, better to just stick to facts here."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Donald Trump */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user was warned about restoring edits that have been undone and that the article is under a clear 1rr restriction but still continued to restore their preferred content and revert after being given a clear warning and notification of the articles restrictions. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the edits it's clear I was on solid ground and was seeking consensus, not edit warring. I've taken the discussion to the talk page here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Removing_bias_regarding_trade_tariffs_from_the_article Efbrazil (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Except you ignored a clear and explicit warning about 1rr on the page itself, multiple times and my warning to you. Just because you believe you are right does not mean you can edit war. And I'm not the only one you've edit warred with. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, there's no 1RR restriction on that page, where it was replaced with the 24-hour-BRD rule. The diffs show a violation of that page restriction, but editors will need to determine whether this is the proper venue to review this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that edit warring is when you revert edits or reimpose edits rather than seeking consensus. Each of my edits were attempting to address prior concerns with content.
- Anyhow, I'm not here to make an argument about the letter of the law, and it's kind of water under the bridge as this is now taking place on the talk page. In the spirit of the law, I'd argue Praxidicae is the one that erred by reverting this edit without reason:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1088695359 Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Note Page blocked from the article for two weeks. Efbrazil has quite egregiously violated the 24-hour restriction, making 3 reverts inside 24 hours. Efbrazil, your understanding of what edit warring is, is flawed. No, seeking consensus on talk does not mean you are allowed to keep reverting the article. Moreover, you're nowhere near getting consensus on talk. It would be better to read our edit warring policy than to handwave at "the spirit of the law" (a spirit which you have, in my opinion, violated just as well as the letter of the law, by going right up against the 3RR rule on this controversial article). Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [1] and [2] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).
- Thanks Bishonen. In detail:
- The first "revert" [3] is not a revert. If you look at the edit, I added a reference to back up the statement. I was responding to a previous revert that said my edit didn't correspond to the source. The article used virtually the exact same wording I did, so I updated the reference to make that clear. I don't think it's a revert if you are replying to a complaint that an edit was unsourced, so you put the edit back in with the sourcing. Do you agree?
- The second revert [4] was a revert, and was arguably a mistake, but it wasn't baseless. The reason I did the revert is that Praxidicae had deleted my edit without giving any reason at all. I don't believe reversion without any stated reasoning is valid, so I reverted with a comment where I respectfully and asked them to state their reasoning for deleting my edit. I don't think that's out of line, but it's fair to say I should have taken a different path. Still, it's also clear to me that Praxidicae provoked the situation by backing out my edit without any basis.
- I hope you'll reconsider the ban. Arguably both myself and Praxidicae could have handled ourselves better, but banning just me seems to be way over the line for this situation. Efbrazil (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bishonen, your thoughts on this? Efbrazil (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- [5] is IMO a revert. It reverts to your own phrasing here. I think I'm done explaining this now, Efbrazil. Also, I think a two-week partial block from one article is a mild sanction; you still have the rest of Wikipedia to edit. Please take it to WP:ANI for community attention if you want to complain further of my block. Bishonen | tålk 04:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, your thoughts on this? Efbrazil (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [1] and [2] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Jude Didimus, User:TRHmTivl, and User:Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese reported by User:Pbritti (Result: )
Page: George Alencherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jude Didimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TRHmTivl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22], [23]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24], [25]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26], [27], [28]
Comments:
I am increasingly of the opinion that this page and all associated with Saint Thomas Christianity in India should be protected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I should add that TRHmTivl received a 48h for edit warring this week that immediately preceded this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
TRHmTivl is repeatedly removing sourced content from a large number of articles such as George Alencherry, List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, Palliveettil Chandy, Augustine Kandathil, Kariattil Iousep, Antony Padiyara etc. Some examples are [29] [30] [31] [32] and many others. All these comprise of removal of title 'Metropolitan and Gate of All India'.Jude Didimus (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jude Didimus, I have been observing changes in this page and the edit-warring. I do not support edit-warring if you or the other user does. But when you are saying "sourced content", you should add references/citations from official websites - either from the Church's official website: http://www.syromalabarchurch.in or from the Major Archbishop's official website : http://www.maralencherry.smcim.org/ . Also you can point to the Major Archbishop's circular's for proving that Major Archbishop officially using such titles/honorifics. Thanks ---John C. (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
John C. I don't think so. What we need is reliable sources. However it does not matter whether they are official or not.Jude Didimus (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jude Didimus, I shared my views on this. That's all. Leaving this topic to you and other users and administrators to take a look on the reliability of the sources and their authenticity. - --John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile User:TRHmTivl is edit warring in article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has already violated 3RR. Sourced content is removed without edit summaries and reasoning.
- [33]
- [34]
- [35] Jude Didimus (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, a brand new account Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an edit war in List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their edits are identical to that of User:TRHmTivl.Jude Didimus (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Just now Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed my latest comments. This is a clear violation of conduct.
- [36]
- [37]
Jude Didimus (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathewkizhakkevila, @TRHmTivl, Do not engage in edit warring. Start a discussion in article's talk page (if that is not yet started), list your points and request other users and admins to intervene in that discussion and reach consensus. This is applicable for User:Jude Didimus also. I already shared my views above and hence nothing more to add from my end on this topic. Thanks.--John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC) -
- Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese is
Blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing related to edit-warring to re-add galleries of their images. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jude Didimus is
Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Qaumrambista. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:67.82.112.107 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)
Page: List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.82.112.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Long-term edit warring. Discussion ongoing on talk page. This edit is telling [38]. Resumed as promised after protect expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Now 5 reverts in last 24 hours. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The IP is also making regular personal attacks[39][40][41][42], with that last link also vowing to continue edit warring. — Czello 21:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Page protected 1 month semi protection EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Telenovelafan215 reported by User:2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (Result: Declined)
Page: La casa de los famosos (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Telenovelafan215 (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]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The IP user doesn’t understand that the nomination tables for Big Brother follow a style where only the head of household, automatically nominated housemates, and immune housemates are color coded. Housemates that are nominated in the regular nomination process are not color coded and are listed at the end of the table. Here are just three examples of the style that the table follows: [49], [50], and [51]. The IP user has said on my talk page that changing the table style will make the table "much more interesting", which I think is not a convincing reason to change it. – Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Declined The IP has made no attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. This noticeboard is not a bludgeoning tool to get one's way in a dispute—especially when one is edit warring themselves to try to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indeffed)
Page: Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [52]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [53] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
- [54] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
- [55] (partially reverting a different edit [56])
- [57] (once again, after being reverted [58])
- [59] (and again)
- [60] (and again)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61][62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]
Comments:
This user already has two previous 3RR blocks on their record, one quite recently. They are shaping up to be a real nuisance. Generalrelative (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
For reference, here is the report on this noticeboard from earlier this month which resulted in ArsenalAtletico2017's most recent block. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are different edits and some are not even reverts. This user is biased, has specifically confirmed before that they will "monitor" me on Wikipedia and now trying to ban me.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the edit warring policy, which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
"same person with different accounts"
: I'm flattered, truly, at your suggestion that I might be GR. Other might take it as an unevidenced aspersion, so I can't recommend it in general. FYI: your user talk page was automatically watchlisted for me when I first edited it, so I saw the noticeboard notice there. It seems you think we're interpreting the EW policy too "widely". Could you point to the edit or edits which you think are being misinterpreted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the edit warring policy, which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are different edits and some are not even reverts. This user is biased, has specifically confirmed before that they will "monitor" me on Wikipedia and now trying to ban me.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
User:5.151.88.4 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No violation)
Page: List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.151.88.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089415161 by Praxidicae (talk) Shadow4dark claims the sources on the War in Afghanistan page state it as a defeat but they do not. On the page they clearly state it as a withdrawal. Check https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan"
- 16:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Changed portion as suggested"
- 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089392228 by Shadow4dark (talk)"
- 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Joe Biden ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan willingly. This does not constitute a defeat on Turkey's part. Wikipedia pages should remain true to their name. ISAF is not Turkey or run by Turkey."
- 13:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Does not constitute a defeat. Turkey is not ISAF. It is a withdrawal, not a defeat."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of wars involving Turkey."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- I've just invited the IP to use the article's talk page. Waiting to see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have made my case there. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Besides, the user is discussing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
User:CarpathianAlien reported by NikolaosFanaris (Result: )
Page Recreate Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CarpathianAlien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [65]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089456306&oldid=1089423558
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089457866&oldid=1089456539
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1089463555
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089410856&oldid=1084809577
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]
Comments:
I have attempted to discuss this with them. Still, the disruptive editing leading to edit warring is clearly their only strategy here as they referred to my edits as propagandising or acts of vandalism, pushing their POV and removing cited content. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:CROIX reported by User:Peter Ormond (Result: )
Page: Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CROIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [69]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70][71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (my talk page)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This user doesn't understand WP:BURDEN, and engages in WP:OR. I'm tired of explaining him the issue on my talk page, but he still doesn't understand. Also, he creates ridiculous redirects: GGAB, PMAB, FAWST .... Peter Ormond 💬 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- We didn’t just resolve this? Also, the majority of those edits you mentioned were either me making the article look cleaner, considering you spammed citiation needed on every single language, even though all those languages had the same source. And one of those edits was accidental, and I immediately reverted it. And, some of those edits were made before we even spoke. CROIX (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is factually correct, they are languages recognized by the government. Once again, the Belize article and the Jamaica article do the exact same thing. CROIX (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- And, I do not recall you saying that I should not use government sources, may I have a link to when you said that? CROIX (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I told you so many times that your sources don't explicilty support the content [73] [74] [75], and now you don't "recall" it. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:StN reported by User:Dekimasu (Result: )
Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2&oldid=1086843322
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82] (warned by Hemiauchenia before final revert); [83] (warned by Alexbrn after final revert listed here)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is discussion on the article's talk page, but I have neither participated in it nor edited the page anytime recently. StN is participating in the talk page discussion but has not ceased reverting.
Diff of a new notice posted to user's talk page: [84]
Comments:
The page is also eligible for discretionary sanctions. I would take care of this incident myself, but I edited the article a great deal in 2020. Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:LemonPie00 reported by User:Czello (Result: )
Page: Adrian Zenz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LemonPie00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Optional method, not mandated by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be pushing your own agenda."
- 12:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "The author's own views and opinions were "challenged by several editors"? Stop trying to defend him. The article is supposed to keep an unbiased and neutral point of view, which the edit provides."
- 11:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Could you stop vandalizing the page?"
- 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Avoid bias. You don't get to paint only one side of the story whilst ignoring Adrian Zenz's homophobic views."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Adrian Zenz."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Note as well this [[85]] and their last edit summary, they are clearly not interested in obeying policy or in not edit waring. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Note as well similar attitudes (and false accusations of vandalism) at other pages. Strong signs this is a wp:nothere account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Given that a lot of their edits seem to be whitewashing the CCP or other totalitarian regimes,[86] including genocide denial,[87] I'm inclined to agree that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:188.66.102.161 reported by User:Czello (Result: )
Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.66.102.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089563238 by Czello (talk)"
- 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089558760 by Czello (talk)"
- 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- fifth reversion
- sixth reversion
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This is a return of long-term edit warring from April. IP seems to regularly come back to brute-force their changes to the country's nationality. User appears to have waited until page protection ended and immediately resumed. — Czello 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe rather than keep blocking, come to some kind of mutual agreement. At least Anglo-Singaporean which has been mentioned. You feel the need to have it your way. 188.66.102.161 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then you should stop edit warring and propose this on the talk page, as you're currently ignoring the consensus to force your own changes into the article. — Czello 14:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:103.216.213.41 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: )
Page: Vikarna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.216.213.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 11:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Not Disruptive Editing"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
- 13:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Ongoing edit warring at Vikarna and other articles (Mahabharat Katha, Dushasana and others). All attempts to reason with this new editor have failed, including a 48 hour block and the discussion at User talk:103.216.213.41 and my Talk page. The user's other IP 103.216.213.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already been blocked for 6 months because of disruption. A few weeks' block would be useful IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 16:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)