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:Mahato King reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Partial block, 48 hours)
Page: Kurmali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mahato King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
- Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
- Consecutive edits made from 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
- 15:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade language */"
- 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
- 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Language variation */"
- 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
- 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Kurmali language."
- 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurmali language."
- 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
New user keeps removing sourced content without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD despite multiple warning, comments and requests at talk page. Makes a comment that "Some people's who edit Wikipedia from outside India manipulate Kurmali writing with false information." here Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Broke 3RR [1], also removing hatnotes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also note accusation here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
To demonstrate that the user is being disruptive, the sentence And bilingually spoken by Bhumij, Ho, Kharia, Lohara/Lohar, Mahli, Munda, Oraon, Santal, Savar and Bathudi communities
which was removed by the user here is cited from a Indian Govt source [2] (page 410). And the hatnote "and Karmali language, a dialect of Santali language" abides by WP:HATNOTE since the spelling is similar. I've explained this in the article talk page as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- More accusations against me [3] [4] [5] even after I asked them to maintain WP:CIVIL here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Edit warring continues [6]. I wonder whether it is a case of WP:CIR, since the user still keeps on reverting sourced content instead of seeking a WP:CONSENSUS. Pinging Peaceray. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is the 6th revert. Also note uncivil comments [7] "You support a crime Mr peaceray". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have just told the user very clearly that they must discuss at the talk page rather than revert.[8] I'm watching closely to see what their next action is. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from the Kurmali language page only. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @C.Fred, another account has started removing the same content from the same page (1, 2).... Kpddg (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- This new user came up immediately. They are removing the same content [9] [10] [11]. Possible sock. Requesting page protection as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Watercheetah99 reported by User:Amaekuma (Result: No action)
Page: Peter Obi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Watercheetah99 (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watercheetah99#Hello
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]
Comments:
- As I noted on my talk page and in edit summaries, the other user has been removing sourced content and adding falsehoods in an attempt to promote a politician. These edits fall well within grounds to maintain neutrality and avoid bias. I noted three falsehoods on my talk page:
- "However this was proven to be wrong as Obi on an interview with Arise TV, stated that he resigned from all his companies before taking the office of Governor of Anambra State." - This has no proof, it's a denial.
- "The investigation by the EFCC didn't yield any incriminating evidence and all charges were dropped." - This is just a lie, the EFCC have never released a statement clearing him nor did they file charges in the first place.
- "Although no law was technically broken by Obi regarding the Pandora papers leaks" - This is also false. First, Obi remained as a company director for over a year while being governor (against the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act); second, Obi did not declare his offshore companies when he became governor (against the Constitution); and lastly, he maintained foreign accounts while being governor (that is against both the Constitution and Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act). All of these were directly addressed in the source.
- Let me make some things abundantly clear. Give me a minute of your time and read please
- * First I need you to understand that the subject here isn't a government official presently, he is in the opposition. If you know anything about politics in Africa and other developing countries, you will know that the incumbent government go to any length to silence the opposition. With that said, I hope you get the context with which I'm writing this below
- * Premium Times newspaper (the media house who brought out the article) isn't a court nor is it official anti-corruption body of Nigeria. So their investigation is neither conclusive nor damning. The official anti-corruption body of Nigeria, the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case. If there was something on him, he'll be in jail today but was never been charged to court on the matter. So neither the article above nor the wikipedia editor above can't be police, judge and executioner.
- * Wikipedia is built unbias and balance. There is always two sides to a story. Yes, His name was listed in Pandora papers. Yes, a damning article came out about the matter. But there rebuttals from the subject. There were also rebuttals from other reputable media houses condemning the approach of Premium Times who brought out the first article. Is that article a court sentence? Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence? Why can't I append the articles where the approach of Premium Times was condemned? Why must premium times be allowed as citation and the others can't?
- * In conclusion, I dare say if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now. This is Africa, opposition gets squashed, blackmailed or neutralized and The subject is the main opposition running for the President of Nigeria. With all that said, tell that Wikipedian to stop interrupting and reverting my well sourced edits. Wikipedia is a community and everybody has a right to edit any article within his technical purview as long as it is backed with good citations. Amaekuma (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's address these:
- "the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case." - Again, this is a lie. The EFCC have never released a statement dismissing the case.
- "Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence?" - The article already notes his denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence.
- "if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now" - This is just laughable. Decades of politicians (in the ruling, main opposition, and/or minor parties) getting away with massive corruption with no issue and you claim that some tax evasion would have sent him to jail? Tinubu has hijacked the Lagos State funds for 20 years (mainly in opposition) and is free, Atiku was accused of corruption as a major opposition figure in the 2000s and never went to jail, Obiano was immediately arrested for corruption but is perfectly free, Ali Modu Sheriff literally started Boko Haram while in opposition and nothing happened to him; the law does not apply to these people for major offenses so why would it apply to Obi for a relatively minor one? Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is laughable is that you think Wikipedia is the place to pass your judgement. You have no right to do this, and that isn't what Wikipedia is.
- I say again, the anti corruption body has never charged him to court regarding the matter. I am not saying he was charged to court and judgement hasn't been passed. What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court. Nothing. That is even the most crucial thing.
- An article that has been rebuffed, picked apart and labelled a witch-hunt is what is being used on Wikipedia to tarnish a man's image. There is an availability of an opposing view online and the Wikipedian above won't let me post these links and citations. I took my time to read what Wikipedia is, and his behaviour goes against all the principles, pillars and ethics of Wikipedia. He is rude, seriously trying to push a narrative and unwilling to work with others. And more importantly, he violated the 3R rule in the process. Amaekuma (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- What judgement? What is written is the contents of the article nothing more or less. That is exactly what this site is for: information on subjects.
- "What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court." - You cannot continue to lie about easily verifiable things, you continuously said Obi was "cleared" which isn't true. I've added that no case has been filed, you did not.
- Every piece on corruption is "labelled a witch-hunt" by the politician, we can't remove the section for that. As I've said, the article already notes Obi's denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence which they are not. You have let your support for Obi cloud logic.
- The sad part about this mess is that if you wanted to find a way to add info about Obi, there is a very easy and positive way to do that: write neutrally about his time as Governor. By almost all accounts, he seems to have done very well in education and healthcare (I noted that in the page's intro) so just find good sources and write about that. Every Nigerian politician has corruption allegations, not every politician has a genuinely good public record so stop trying to whitewash the scandal and write about his governance. I was gonna start on that next week but I'm sure you can find some articles on educational rankings and the amount of money in state coffers by 2014. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- An article that has been rebuffed, picked apart and labelled a witch-hunt is what is being used on Wikipedia to tarnish a man's image. There is an availability of an opposing view online and the Wikipedian above won't let me post these links and citations. I took my time to read what Wikipedia is, and his behaviour goes against all the principles, pillars and ethics of Wikipedia. He is rude, seriously trying to push a narrative and unwilling to work with others. And more importantly, he violated the 3R rule in the process. Amaekuma (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Not blocked Any edit warring that happened stopped happening two days ago. I wish you guys could have had the above discussion on the article talk page, but then it's also pretty obvious that neither of you is backing down. So, you need to bring in other people to get some consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Dentren blocked 48h; Bedivere warned)
Page: Izkia Siches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dentren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093751406 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive removals"
- 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093750576 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive changes"
- 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093623195 by Bedivere (talk)-refrain from making POV-pushs"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
- 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
- 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on El Líbero."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disputed material */ Reply"
Comments:
User has been making POV-pushing edits in several Chile-related articles, including Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile, and lately Izkia Siches and El Líbero. He started RFCs in the first two ones' talk pages, only to be told his actions were incorrect (POV-pushing). Since they are not listening first to advice, second to warnings, I suggest sanctioning them. This is not the first time they engage in such behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1) Bedivere is Diego Grez-Cañete, a user who is permanently banned from Wikipedia [18]. 2) Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete refuses to engage in constructive discussions on talk pages (see Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile). Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete is strongly into left wing-politics by his own account (former member of Socialist Party of Chile and current supporter of Social Convergence), and is an open supporter of Gabriel Boric [19]. This is not the first time Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete engages in conflict of interest (see Diego Grez-Cañete old saga of warnings and bans). It would be of further interest to have Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete disclose all his current and past link to Chilean politics and political activism. Dentren | Talk 01:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have absolutely no proof about that supposed sockpuppetry, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Now there's another problem here: this user is not assuming good faith, making totally groundless accusations and ultimately disregards politics, disrupting the project in order to prove a point. They should be definitely stopped. I am not reverting once again their edits, but an admin should call them out at last. Bedivere (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Both User:Dentren and User:Bedivere are edit-warring at Izkia Siches. I think page protection may be the best option, to encourage everyone to discuss on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mx. Granger, agree this is what Bedivire-Diego Grez-Cañete should have done from the biggining instead of warriyng. Dentren | Talk 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Mx. Granger. Not to mention it should be restored to its stable version Bedivere (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked Dentren for 48h for edit-warring and for the personal attacks here. Another reason for the block is that Dentren reverted yet again today, well after this report was filed. Bedivere, you too were edit-warring and are warned that any future reverts at the article will probably result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
User:86.30.52.72 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Blocks)
Page: Essex dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.30.52.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]
Comments:
A user named Judeobasquelanguage was warned about edit warring on the relevant page. Scope creep, Czello, and I have been trying to maintain the page status quo ante. Then the anonymous user listed above appeared on the scene and continued the process of reverting. Possibly a case of block evasion? Canterbury Tail may concur / know more. The anonymous user has been the only one to take to the talk page, but when I responded, they responded in turn with off-the-rails ad hominem-style gibberish. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)}}
- This is Judeobaquelanguage's IP address, they've confirmed it in the past including on the IP talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- IP id blocked and Judeobasquelanguage has been indeffed for complete inability to operate in a collaborative environment without calling people racist just because they disagree with them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: No action)
Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv editor whose account was created the same day"
- 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv anon...sockpuppet?"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) to 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "have both viewpoints represented"
- 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "ABC source"
- 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "RV as that editor's account was just created today"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User FobTown continues edit warring with other users in the page and also making accusations of being sockpuppets of mine towards other users without opening any sockpuppet investigations on these accounts. Even the reason for reverting is claiming they are sockpuppets In addition there are also threats like Your account was just created today so you will be under scrutiny. Read the following before you give your cookie-cutter arguments that are similar to those made by User:UtoD Considering that sockpuppet accusations in talk page and edit summaries pretty much drags me back into the dispute and using these accusations as reasons for revert/attacks rather than reporting them is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am putting this in the edit warring reports but also want to report the casting of aspersions. UtoD 18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is true that User:Simpleshooter99 created an account and went right to editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. Plus User:Simpleshooter99's first edit was similar to User:UtoD [25], and both use similar rhetoric on their edit summaries and article Talk page.[26] In addition, I was about to call out User contributions for 49.186.67.124 for being a potential sockpuppet, however User:Simpleshooter99 later admitted to forgetting to log back in.[27] Ending up User:Simpleshooter99 and I did have a discussion on the Talk page, with User:Thriley and User:Qiushufang being involved, and so far we seem to have come to a compromise. [28] FobTown (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Not blocked I see that there has been discussion on the article talk page, although it does not seem like it will end any time soon. If FobTown seriously believes that socks have been created, they should report them to SPI; otherwise, to simply refuse discussion on that basis is bad faith. Most edit warring has currently stopped and, frankly, the alleged socking seems like the bigger issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Xpenz reported by User:StellarNerd (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Tesla Autopilot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xpenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094108867 by StellarNerd (talk) Stop removing my edits unless you have a good explanation" (revert of [29])
- 19:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "" (revert of [30])
- 01:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "These reported crashes is after Musk made these comments. If you want to add them you need to rephrase it." (revert of [31])
- 00:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093963018 by QRep2020 (talk) so has other automakers and AI companies, that does not make it relevant though." (revert of [32])
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Autopilot."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Toyota */ new section"
Comments:
Instead of discussion on article talk, posted on their talk: ""Undoing another editor's work" did not happen, as long as you keep deleting my edits I'll keep re adding it. ". They have reverted four times in the past 24 hours, both me and User:QRep2020. They have potentially a fifth revert in this edit, but that's not a reversal of a very recent edits. All of the four edits listed above are reverts of editors in the last 24 hours. StellarNerd (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
User:HamHammm reported by User:M.Bitton (Result:Sock blocked)
Page: Ibn Battuta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HamHammm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added multiple sources from multiple scholarly papers from various academic institutions, universities and various history websites in addition to further clarify the identity of this person, "Maghrebi" is a term that refers to overall geographical region of the Maghreb of just like Southern Europe/Southern European people or South East Asia/South East Asian, Wikipedia should be a source of accuracy please do no undo as it took me a lot of time to edit these sources with the correct format"
- 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094102323 by M.Bitton (talk) I added one additional source, there was no sources in the first place next to Maghrebi, this term is vague and the entirety of the sources I added mention that he was indeed Moroccan, the term Maghrebi is not accurate enough as Maghreb is a vague geographical region that includes Algeria and Tunisia."
- 19:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094100475 by M.Bitton (talk) Added an additional source from history.com, please stop removing sources and references and provide proof that clarify your stance otherwise this considered WP:VANDAL per Wikipedia rules and I'm gonna be forced to report you."
- 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094099228 by M.Bitton (talk) Please do not remove sources and references next time you edit without a detailed explanation, all the sources added are from highly reputable platforms. If you have any reason (backed by sources of course) to believe that he was from other countries that form the "Maghreb" please provide them."
- 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added some more precise clarification, plus additional sources."
- 17:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Early life section states that he was born in Morocco on 24 February 1304.."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ibn Battuta."
- 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
- 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
- 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
- 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
Comments:
This "new" editor keeps replacing scholarly sources about the subject with whatever is mentioned in passing and edit warring against two editors. I left two comments on their talk page that they ignored. I then moved those comments to the article's talk page and pinged them (to no avail). They only started communicating after breaking 3R.
I reported them earlier and retracted the report once another editor got involved. After blanking their talk page, they are back to continue the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, the claim that they forgot their old account's password doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed sock account has been blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)