Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:FRANKHLN reported by User:Praxidicae (Result:Partial block)
Page: Herbalife Nutrition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FRANKHLN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"
- 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
- Consecutive edits made from 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "Adding in an additional source"
- 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
- 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
- 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herbalife Nutrition."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
user continues to whitewash and add copyvios to articles despite warnings and reaching out on talk page PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- appears to be UPE as well based on the username FRANKHLNl (FRANK HLN = HLN = herbalife nutrition) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- They've now added yet another edit to their war and have completely ignored their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Partially blocked from Herbalife Nutrition given the persistent edit warring with an apparent COI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Yae4 reported by User:84.250.14.116 (Result: one week p-block)
Page: GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- Special:Diff/1094363773, Special:Diff/1094473794 (by User:Resonantia)
- Special:Diff/1094477304 (by reporter)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/1094307821
- Special:Diff/1094400458
- Special:Diff/1094475710
- Special:Diff/1094489078
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1094472787/1094482255
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Special:Diff/1094481231/1094485592 (by reporter)
- Special:Diff/1094486178 (by User:Yae4)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1094490395
Comments:
Introducing original research or questionable sources (disputed citations) to the article. More warnings or WP:DR may be the way to go. I would like to revert again (I'm not the only one to disagree with User:Yae4) until consensus is found on the talk page, but I won't continue this edit war. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I did a lot of work on this Article over the last day or two, only to see a "swarm" of dormant, single purpose, and IP editors undo half my work with virtually zero discussion. As stated at the Talk page, the IP editor has added other similar primary-source information. Actually, they restored what I added, but somebody deleted: My add[1]; their restore[2]Also please note my bcc of Administrators in my Talk comments, and the lack of any response or dialogue by the Reporter to my Talk comments; and my request for semi-protection.[3] I try not to, but also suspect puppetry, but was dragging feet on asking for investigation, in hopes of getting some real dialogue or consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember what the guideline or essay is named here on enwiki, but editors can be busy and not respond (I think the guideline or essay said to give maybe up to 3 days to respond). I did not have time to respond to talk in 31 minutes, however I did so once I became aware of it and had time. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week (partial) Yae4, after choosing a revert at random, I was looking at your revert edit summary RE: twitter (diff) and, like the IP editor (diff), I found myself confused as to what that has to do with anything. I presume it's about you wanting to omit the qualifier that it was stated, specifically, by Derrek Lee (while the IP editor wants to include it). Personally, I'm not sure why that entire paragraph about Jack Dorsey's tweet is even worth mentioning at all, Derek Lee'ing or not. But then again, this is the first time I've heard of this OS. The point, though, is that this one revert I sampled randomly (which just happened to be yours) did not add up for me. El_C 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because my intent was to undo "Anonymous526" edits; not the "84.250.14.116" edit which occurred 7 minutes before my rollback, and was not observed by me until after. Usually articles like this have much less activity. I agree Dorsey's tweet is insignificant, but GrapheneOS fans seem to believe Tweets are the bee's knees... Anyway, thanks for the wiki-vacation. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
while the IP editor wants to include it
I had no intended involvement in regards to the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute between User:Anonymous526 and User:Yae4; when I became aware the rollback on my diff wasn't intended, I excluded my maintenance tag diff from Yae4's rollback ("fixed" the rollback) and subsequently became uninvolved in that Twitter dispute. In other words, I had no real role in the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 01:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- Yae4, if you wish to take a wiki-vacation just for not being able to edit one page out of six million for one week, well, that is certainly your prerogative. The random example/sample is not that important, it was just confusing to me. I'm not really following the explanations regarding it, but I don't think it's important that I do. What's important that you do, however, Yae4, is to watch out for WP:3RR in the future. IP, that wasn't a WP:ROLLBACK, it was just a revert (i.e. Tag: Reverted, per se.). El_C 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- IP, I just checked and Yae4 doesn't even have the rollback user right. They don't have any WP:PERMs, in fact, aside from having gained the extended confirmed one automatically (500 edits, 30 days). El_C 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having been already banned from climate change articles reduces the total available articles significantly, as I'm sure you're also aware. Whatever you technically call it I see "restore this version" on old versions of article pages, which to me as non-wiki expert is a rollback. Consider me reminded of 3RR, and how a swarm of probably connected users can revert-bate someone easily. Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware (or maybe I was at one time and had forgotten since?). Why would you presume I'd be aware? Was I connected to reviewing or enforcing that sanction? The reason I corrected the IP editor wrt them saying you've used WP:ROLLBACK to revert (which obviously you did not), was to highlight the following tautology: since you don't have that WP:PERM, you obviously can't use it, thus, you can't be sanctioned for misusing it.
- To clarify a bit further: one could use a non-rollback revert that's accompanied by an automated edit summary. Like, for example, using 'naked' WP:UNDO (i.e. without any custom text added). But again, that's not the same thing as rollback because undo isn't a perm (and rollback could be used rapidly while undo cannot).
- When I became an admin back in 2005, only admins had access to rollback. Now, of course, it's a perm that non-admin could also have. But even back in those olden days, folks (admins) would frequently get in trouble for rollback mis-use (i.e. when using it in content disputes, failing to limit its usage to vandalism/disruptive editing, etc.). HTH El_C 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because you checked logs and maybe looked at user pages. Also, I have a recollection of you siding with Jzg/Guy on some issue and claiming "non-involved" at some point, but can't put fingers on that right now, so water under bridge, almost. Every-day for you. Unusual surprise for me, I know. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't look at logs, just user rights (prompted by the IP's rollback claim). Sorry, I have no memory of that. I've blocked close to 10,000 users and protected close to 10,000 pages, so the expectation that I'd recall this or that from a while ago, while frequent (example), isn't really realistic. El_C 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because you checked logs and maybe looked at user pages. Also, I have a recollection of you siding with Jzg/Guy on some issue and claiming "non-involved" at some point, but can't put fingers on that right now, so water under bridge, almost. Every-day for you. Unusual surprise for me, I know. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having been already banned from climate change articles reduces the total available articles significantly, as I'm sure you're also aware. Whatever you technically call it I see "restore this version" on old versions of article pages, which to me as non-wiki expert is a rollback. Consider me reminded of 3RR, and how a swarm of probably connected users can revert-bate someone easily. Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- IP, I just checked and Yae4 doesn't even have the rollback user right. They don't have any WP:PERMs, in fact, aside from having gained the extended confirmed one automatically (500 edits, 30 days). El_C 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yae4, if you wish to take a wiki-vacation just for not being able to edit one page out of six million for one week, well, that is certainly your prerogative. The random example/sample is not that important, it was just confusing to me. I'm not really following the explanations regarding it, but I don't think it's important that I do. What's important that you do, however, Yae4, is to watch out for WP:3RR in the future. IP, that wasn't a WP:ROLLBACK, it was just a revert (i.e. Tag: Reverted, per se.). El_C 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
User:67.82.112.107 reported by User:PhantomTech (Result: Blocked)
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:
- 01:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094509062 by 47.227.95.73 (talk) Back off. I changed the head titles for a reason. See talk page you idiot."
- 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Sick of you idiots and hypocrites."
- 01:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094508630 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
- 01:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Special:Diff/1094508834 Talk page notice
- Special:Diff/1094508779 Notice in edit summary
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
It seems the situation is that they were blocked about a month ago for edit waring on the same page and have now resumed. They've been warned to not edit war on their talk page and in an edit summary since their block ended. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – 2 weeks by User:Ks0stm. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
User:2402:8100:3905:2b4a:a094:ba57:a713:d680 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Semi)
Page: List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2402:8100:3905:2b4a:a094:ba57:a713:d680 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [5] featuring POV intentions in edit summary
- [6] again featuring POV in edit summary
- [7]
- [8] Reverts another user
- [9] Cleans up error in an edit I don’t think counts as a proper revert but the intention to disregard the conversation on the talk page is evident
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]
Comments:
As is typical in Indian Christian articles, unsourced edits to claim continuity with ancient Christians are prevalent. IP adds material that all fail verification and has ignored warnings and requests for discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I admit I didn't look terribly closely at this case. I noticed what looked like an IP using canned edit summaries and edit warring, reverted and warned as a good measure. When I was informed the IP may have been doing good faith edits, I reverted my warning and left them a note about edit summaries. I was doing some light RC patrol during downtime at work and did not have the time to analyze the edits fully (hence my decision to apologize and undo the warning, which based on this may have been better left in place), so I am afraid I won't have much else to offer here. Thanks for the ping. ASUKITE 16:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Roy Smith. The same IP is included in a /35 range that is under a one-year partial block applied by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Dr.AndrewBamford reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked)
Page: University of Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.AndrewBamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) to 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094573848 by Jonathan A Jones (talk)"
- 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 11:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Rankings and reputation */Restored university rankings table following an unhelpful edit, where important information was omitted."
- 16:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Oxford remains 1st in the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2022 publication"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith."
- 14:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
- 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is edit warring on a range of UK university articles and refuses to discuss Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours. The user's last 50 edits are mostly reverts on various UK universities. They have never posted to a talk page. This behavior probably won't continue much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- 213.205.198.9 has started making the same edits as the above user. Spike 'em (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, edits to 16 university pages so far in one night with the exact same edit pattern. Given that the user seems to be trying to evade the ban, does this need to be escalated? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:185.104.136.29 and User:213.205.198.9 are now blocked. This guy is industrious in finding new IPs. Rangeblock not possible, but a lot of semiprotections might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, edits to 16 university pages so far in one night with the exact same edit pattern. Given that the user seems to be trying to evade the ban, does this need to be escalated? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- 213.205.198.9 has started making the same edits as the above user. Spike 'em (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page: Gabriel Boric (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:
- 21:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Presidency */ please make a convincing case in the talk page before insisting in unilaterally removing sourced poll content from WP:RS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Just a day after their block for edit warring has expired, Dentren is back at it restoring a section that has been removed after discussion at the talk page mostly (except for Dentren himself) agreed the opinion polling section should not be included at this time. I did not revert their actions since I am not starting myself an edit war, for which I was also blocked recently. Bedivere (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bedivere continues as he has done before to do unilateral removal of well-sourced content without engaging in discussion first. A close look at the history of the article shows this disruptive pattern. And again, Bedivere is not a legitimate user but a sockpuppet of banned user Diego Grez-Cañete. Dentren | Talk 02:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week Restoring the opinion poll material was clearly against consensus on talk page. And do not repeat your sockpuppetry claim as fact since the SPI closed without a check being done. Nothing will come of this except more and longer blocks as long as you continue to not AGF here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Both warned)
Page: Talk:Malayan Emergency (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): Previous notional explanations did not justify inappropriate POV heading"
- 02:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet edits: alleged Original Research */"
- 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Claimed Sockpuppet “Original Research” */Neutral heading, per TalkHeadPov"
- 23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "TPG"
- 23 February 2022 "TALKHEADPOV: “heading should … not communicate a specific view about it.” The discussion is about what aspects constitute OR, if any. Titling the section OR is unquestionably a specific view on that subject."
- 22 February 2022 "WP:TALKHEADPOV"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* TPG */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Cambial Yellowing has gone over 3RR to change a talkpage header on a topic I began. This is a reactivation of previous attempts to do so from February [13][14]. (Pre-emptively noting that while there are some IP edits doing the same in the history, these are emphatically not Cambial Yellowing, but more of the socks in question.) CMD (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not lie about other editor's behaviour, Chipmunkdavies. As can be seen from the diffs you provide, exactly two of those edits are reverts, compared to your three. My other edits have sought to find a compromise that includes the phrase "original research" which you seem eager to include, while maintaining a neutral heading. The bland "sockpuppet OR" phrase tells editors nothing about the discussion content.
- In future, do not fabricate actions to pretend I have made reverts, when my edits are clearly not reverts, and are seeking to accommodate or compromise to your concerns.
- Chipmunkdavies edit warring:
Cambial — foliar❧ 03:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Trying to make the same edit in different ways is reverting. As regards to the mention of sanction gaming and fabrication, all the diffs are presented above without modification. CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Worrying that you try to justify your misrepresenting other editor's actions by doing more of the same. "Trying to make the same edit" - what does this even mean? If I had tried to make the same edit, I would have achieved it. Plainly this edit (23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)) and this edit (02:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) and this (02:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) are not trying to make the same edit - I don't even use anything close to the same words. It is you who have repeatedly reverted to the exact same inappropriate POV wording for reasons that are unclear. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so, User:Cambial Yellowing has only made 3 edits to Talk:Malayan Emergency [15], [16]and [17]. Techinally he has not yet violated 3RR, there has to be a fourth revert in a 24 hour period in order to be an violation of 3RR, that has not yet happen yet so an admin should consider it as a No Violation. Chip3004 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used. The wording is specifically tailored to the topic being raised, which was various OR added by sockpuppet. Chip3004, I linked four diffs from the past few hours above, and the bright line doesn't change the fact this is a sudden re-attempt at something previously tried in February. CMD (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Trying to make the same edit in different ways is reverting. As regards to the mention of sanction gaming and fabrication, all the diffs are presented above without modification. CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used
. No, it doesn't mean that. My edits are clearly different, as you (rather obliquely in editsum) objected to the initial title change. All your edits are the same and with essentially no explication or explanation in ES - that's edit warring.
I note with interest Chipmunkdavies that you had edit-warred with several IPs over the same issue after the end of our earlier talk page discussion: 1 2 3 4 Perhaps you can explain why you are willing to edit war so repeatedly to maintain a particular POV? Cambial — foliar❧ 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the reference to oblique objection, I included a specific response on the talkpage at the time. As for the POV assertion, I continue to not understand this assertion. What is my POV here, that unsourced or falsely supported edits are OR? CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I explained the reason at the time. My reason did not preclude any number of possible alternative headings which you could have used to maintain a neutral intro for other editors who may join the discussion in future. Instead you reverted to your singular version, multiple times with other editors, and then again when I tried alternatives which included the phrase "OR" which you say is the important issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following as to what my supposed POV is. WP:OR is not a POV, it is policy. Getting off-topic for this board, but to show again, the discussion was raised about the Sockpuppet OR removed in this edit. The text involved that was added/changed including the addition of 13 sources: Newsinger 2013 p.220, Newsinger 2013 p.219, Hack 2018 p.203, Newsinger 2013 p.218-219, Leary 1995 42-43, Siver 2009 (no page), BBC 2021 (audio), Tilman 1966 p.407-419, Newsinger 2013 p.221, Newsinger 2015 p.33, Zahari 2007 p.102, Komer 1972 p.8. Of these, none stood up to scrutiny and only one remains in place (Newsinger 2013, p. 220., and I don't think anyone has checked it, however it feels relatively low risk given Newsinger 2015, p. 52. was already there). I'm not sure how much more OR you can get. Furthermore, looking into it now, most of these appear to have been randomly copied from elsewhere in the article. Komer 1972 p.8 seems to have been invented literally because it sat between an existing Komer 1972 p.7 and a Komer 1972 p.9. Remarkable. CMD (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- No-one has suggested WP:OR is a POV. Arguing against a point no one has made is a waste of time. The question is over your explicit claim that all the content you removed *is* OR. Given that a good deal of the content remains in the article, supported by scholarship, this does not bear out. The Siver and Newsinger sources that you removed remain in the article (the Siver in a later expanded edition; both versions support the text). The bulk of the discussion was about the content sourced to Siver, which you inaccurately claim was referenced in only two of your comments (it is in five) and which you call an "
unexpected derailment
" despite being content you removed and then started a talk section about claiming it was original research. - Back to the topic. You made eight reversions to your exact same Heading claim of OR, four within 24 hours in Feb and three within the last 24 hours:
- Attempts to rewrite completely differently, to include what you say is the issue neutrally, you ignored: you simply continued reverting. You then come here and misrepresent another editor's actions, and then misrepresent the content of the earlier discussion directly to me, on my talk page. As though I wouldn't notice your claim was not accurate. It's not clear what your aim is in misrepresenting this scholarly content from a detailed academic source as OR, or why you refuse any alternative solution to avoid misrepresenting it as such. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- To try and be clear, I have sought clarification on what the point is supposed to be, not argued against anything. Regarding what you say is my claim, I did not claim I only referenced Siver twice, I claimed that only two of the comments did not touch on the overall topic of OR. Regarding Siver and Newsinger, I did not remove them from the article, they were already in the article, as I have previously stated. They are just no longer used as fake sources. I did not misrepresent the topic of the discussion on your talkpage or elsewhere, I repeat again that it was a discussion that I started, so I am reasonably sure I know what the topic for it was. At any rate, I find myself repeating things, and I think I have covered everything above. The continued accusations of misrepresentation are saddening, as well as feeling oddly misdirected. CMD (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1. But you did remove those sources from the section that you altered. Claiming “I didn’t remove them”, because they happen to additionally be used in a completely different section of the article, is quite disingenuous. 2. You stated, in text and ES, "Only 2 of my 8 comments were about the Geneva Conventions" - the content supported by Siver. Five of your comments are about Geneva Conventions and mention that content by name. 3. It’s unfortunate that you feel saddened. Suggest that if you refrain from misrepresenting other editor’s actions by claiming edits are reverts when they plainly are not - in fact they introduce utterly different text to fit with your expressed concerns - this may reduce the chance of causing such negative emotions in yourself in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Responding because of the assertion of disingenuity, I'm not sure why this matters, but the sources were not all used in a completely different section. Newsinger was (and still is) used even earlier in the lead! They are of course no longer used where they were inserted as fake references, barring the one exception I covered in an earlier comment. Siver was, again, was not used to support the Geneva Convention text. For reference the edit is here, and Siver is being used to support the Orang Asli sentence. Again, the issue is the usage in this specific edit, rather than the existing uses on the page, or the subsequent uses you have found. There has not been any misrepresentation on my end, and given my concerns are continually misrepresented, here they are expressed explicitly: I opened a talkpage discussion on a specific topic, with a title to reflect that topic. Please kindly refrain from altering this. CMD (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- If, as you claim to have done, you determined that the sources did not support the text, you must have read their content in order to achieve this. It would take quite some effort to miss the fact that Siver entirely focused - the entire article - on substantiating exactly the claim made one sentence earlier than where it was placed - content you removed claiming it was original research. Not a “fake reference” but a misplaced citation; misplaced by exactly 23 words in one sentence. I’ve quoted you accurately about your claimed concerns; not clear how you imagine that to be misrepresented.
- On the other hand, and to again get back to the topic, your misrepresentation of my edits on this noticeboard is entirely clear. Refraining from doing so in future will save a great deal of time and, according to your claim above, self-inflicted sadness. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Responding because of the assertion of disingenuity, I'm not sure why this matters, but the sources were not all used in a completely different section. Newsinger was (and still is) used even earlier in the lead! They are of course no longer used where they were inserted as fake references, barring the one exception I covered in an earlier comment. Siver was, again, was not used to support the Geneva Convention text. For reference the edit is here, and Siver is being used to support the Orang Asli sentence. Again, the issue is the usage in this specific edit, rather than the existing uses on the page, or the subsequent uses you have found. There has not been any misrepresentation on my end, and given my concerns are continually misrepresented, here they are expressed explicitly: I opened a talkpage discussion on a specific topic, with a title to reflect that topic. Please kindly refrain from altering this. CMD (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1. But you did remove those sources from the section that you altered. Claiming “I didn’t remove them”, because they happen to additionally be used in a completely different section of the article, is quite disingenuous. 2. You stated, in text and ES, "Only 2 of my 8 comments were about the Geneva Conventions" - the content supported by Siver. Five of your comments are about Geneva Conventions and mention that content by name. 3. It’s unfortunate that you feel saddened. Suggest that if you refrain from misrepresenting other editor’s actions by claiming edits are reverts when they plainly are not - in fact they introduce utterly different text to fit with your expressed concerns - this may reduce the chance of causing such negative emotions in yourself in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- To try and be clear, I have sought clarification on what the point is supposed to be, not argued against anything. Regarding what you say is my claim, I did not claim I only referenced Siver twice, I claimed that only two of the comments did not touch on the overall topic of OR. Regarding Siver and Newsinger, I did not remove them from the article, they were already in the article, as I have previously stated. They are just no longer used as fake sources. I did not misrepresent the topic of the discussion on your talkpage or elsewhere, I repeat again that it was a discussion that I started, so I am reasonably sure I know what the topic for it was. At any rate, I find myself repeating things, and I think I have covered everything above. The continued accusations of misrepresentation are saddening, as well as feeling oddly misdirected. CMD (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- No-one has suggested WP:OR is a POV. Arguing against a point no one has made is a waste of time. The question is over your explicit claim that all the content you removed *is* OR. Given that a good deal of the content remains in the article, supported by scholarship, this does not bear out. The Siver and Newsinger sources that you removed remain in the article (the Siver in a later expanded edition; both versions support the text). The bulk of the discussion was about the content sourced to Siver, which you inaccurately claim was referenced in only two of your comments (it is in five) and which you call an "
- I'm not following as to what my supposed POV is. WP:OR is not a POV, it is policy. Getting off-topic for this board, but to show again, the discussion was raised about the Sockpuppet OR removed in this edit. The text involved that was added/changed including the addition of 13 sources: Newsinger 2013 p.220, Newsinger 2013 p.219, Hack 2018 p.203, Newsinger 2013 p.218-219, Leary 1995 42-43, Siver 2009 (no page), BBC 2021 (audio), Tilman 1966 p.407-419, Newsinger 2013 p.221, Newsinger 2015 p.33, Zahari 2007 p.102, Komer 1972 p.8. Of these, none stood up to scrutiny and only one remains in place (Newsinger 2013, p. 220., and I don't think anyone has checked it, however it feels relatively low risk given Newsinger 2015, p. 52. was already there). I'm not sure how much more OR you can get. Furthermore, looking into it now, most of these appear to have been randomly copied from elsewhere in the article. Komer 1972 p.8 seems to have been invented literally because it sat between an existing Komer 1972 p.7 and a Komer 1972 p.9. Remarkable. CMD (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Result: Both User:Cambial Yellowing and User:Chipmunkdavis are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you try to change the disputed heading to anything else without first getting consensus to do so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston I was just closing this and got an edit conflict. Here was by close:
EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)* Partially blocked – for a period of 3 week This has to be one of the dumbest thing I've seen in a bit. Cambial Yellowing, you've been edit-warring over that section header for months, starting February 22, 2022. And, to be clear, you are in the wrong here... that section header is just fine as well as the fact the account was a sockpuppet. Honestly a site block might be better but for now a p-block it is. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston I was just closing this and got an edit conflict. Here was by close:
- User:EvergreenFir, if you want to impose a partial block, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The warning is fine. I just had that all typed up and wanted to at least post it as part of the warning to the users. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:EvergreenFir, if you want to impose a partial block, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I explained the reason at the time. My reason did not preclude any number of possible alternative headings which you could have used to maintain a neutral intro for other editors who may join the discussion in future. Instead you reverted to your singular version, multiple times with other editors, and then again when I tried alternatives which included the phrase "OR" which you say is the important issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
User:SkylerLovefist reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked - 7 days)
Page: List of Impact Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SkylerLovefist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094741868 by HHH Pedrigree (talk) I'm beginning to get really tired of you and Addicted gatekeeping."
- 07:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094733672 by Addicted4517 (talk) Look, pack in the WP:OWN. You're just editing to your own ego rather than for the good of the article at this point."
- 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094671570 by Czello (talk) THEY DO RECOGNISE IT. THATS THE POINT WE'RE MAKING"
- 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094581195 by Czello (talk) For GOD'S sake. He came out on the Pay Per View with the damn belt, they called him the NEVER Openweight Champion, he's holding the belt in the picture. This is just getting ludicrous at this point."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* What good sourcing looks like */ new section"
Comments:
First off, nobody linked me to that discussion on the Impact talk page. And secondly, the "edit war " is only happening because other users are deliberately ignoring sources which verify the edit myself and another user made. When we make an edit stating that a company holds a title and to placate a user with a history of WP:OWN, we provide a picture of the wrestler in the company in question holding the belt in question because the users arguing for whatever reason don't actually watch the product in question and call the edit invalid and then say the picture WHICH PROVES WHAT WE'RE SAYING EXACTLY isn't good enough, they're just editing for ego rather than the good of the article. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not the first time the user has problems. Every time we try to explain rules, he attack the other user, saying we WP:OWN the article (first time I hear about asking for sources is WP:OWN and act as gatekeepers). He has no knowledge about Wikipedia rules and no interest to learn them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Three different editors have now informed you that your sourcing isn't good enough. You're also resorting to personal attacks (you've called editors egotistical several times, including in the above comment, and you have accused several editors of WP:OWN). I did inform you I'd start a talk page discussion (here). Regardless, none of what you've said above justifies going over WP:3RR. It's a hard line. — Czello 08:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what concerns me more, the extreme hyperbole from HHHPedrigree or that you're choosing to ignore the behaviour of said editors I've cited using WP:OWN. It does justify it because you, him and Addicted are all ignoring WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not "ignoring rules and refusing to learn them" per the broken English above. I'm citing the lack of being reasonable coming from him and Addicted. I'll concede, Czello that while I don't agree with you either, you are attempting in your own way to be diplomatic. Those two in my opinion are not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Talking about your behavior. [18] You included unsourced information and other users removed. You stated the discussion with WP:OWN accusations. The usual way: You include unsourced information, other user revered because unsourced information can not be here. You accused him of WP:OWN and gatekeeper. Every time other user tries to explain the rules, you ignore him and attack him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it does not justify it. You are only permitted to break WP:3RR to undo vandalism or remove BLP violations. — Czello 09:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what concerns me more, the extreme hyperbole from HHHPedrigree or that you're choosing to ignore the behaviour of said editors I've cited using WP:OWN. It does justify it because you, him and Addicted are all ignoring WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not "ignoring rules and refusing to learn them" per the broken English above. I'm citing the lack of being reasonable coming from him and Addicted. I'll concede, Czello that while I don't agree with you either, you are attempting in your own way to be diplomatic. Those two in my opinion are not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for 7 days. The violation of 3RR is one thing, the persistent refusal to accept that an image is not a reliable source and the attacks on other users (including in this report) makes it worse. Cut it out, please. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
User:SkylerLovefist reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: Redundant complaint)
Redundant complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: List of Impact Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SkylerLovefist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
User has been reverted 4 times by 3 users. He includes a picture as a source even if has been explained in edit and talk page that pictures are not valid as reliable sources. Everytime an user explained the rules, he said we are gatekeepers and said we WP:OWN the article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Read the above report, brotocycle. Redundant complaint. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary this is a perfectly valid complaint, and not only that the user has a history of persistently making accusations of WP:OWN in other parts of professional wrestling. I was on the verge of reporting him to ANI for harassment on my talk page, but this complaint will suffice as a perfectly good substitute. His refusal to accept corrections (his comment here is a perfect example of said refusal) has also been constant. He has been blocked previously for harassment. See his block log. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
User:ForcedAnonymity reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: )
Page: Paolo Banchero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ForcedAnonymity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]
Comments:
Page has now been protected for a week.[33] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:24.80.117.27 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Stale)
Page: Star Trek: Discovery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.80.117.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Initial revert at 00:59, 25 June 2022
- 01:12, 25 June 2022
- 01:18, 25 June 2022
- 01:26, 25 June 2022
- 01:32, 25 June 2022
- 01:39, 25 June 2022
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Edit war notice delivered at 01:29, 25 June 2022 which was reverted less than 1 minute later at 01:29, 25 June 2022
- 3RR notice delivered at 01:30, 25 June 2022 which was reverted two minutes later at 01:32, 25 June 2022
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm an uninvolved editor reporting this issue. User Chip3004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to address this on IP editor's talk page but was reverted with the edit summary "LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!"
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: ANEW notice diff
Comments:
Note I'm an uninvolved editor reporting this issue, as the article is on my watchlist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry for screaming to Sideswipe9th. I already talk to and apologizing to Chip3004 and Oknazevad. I hope my comments on its talk page to sent to this one by it respective talk pages. I also don't want to go too far on the 3RR. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )
Page: 1988 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094881694 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) why other Olympics no need, why this needed? rv, dun mind 3RR, consistency across Olympics article"
- 03:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Drmargi (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
- 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094823922 by Drmargi (talk) host "city", if want to keep that, Paris also got province"
- 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Kapieli2017 (talk) to last version by Orenburg1"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 03:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1988 Winter Olympics."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 03:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:2028 Summer Olympics "/* Host city */"
Comments:
This user is also edit warring at the 2028 Summer Olympics article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can block me if you want, but at the same time, you should block those people who are, indeed not discuss, inconsistent throughout the revert verdict, if that it to be it done, it should be done consistently across the multi-sports event, not one and not for another, indeed that's nobody come for discussion and just keep biting another person, WP:OVERLINK also stated those are already overlinking, so why need to put the redundancy things. Good luck --Aleenf1 04:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- While i'm see also somebody reverted the edits as of me, so what is the point, User talk:Kapieli2017, Wikipedian biting back and forth. This is getting stupid, the person who reported never have it to be discuss and the person who keep consistency been bited. Unfortunately. --Aleenf1 04:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should say also every people above has been edit, reverted across the Olympics article, consistently/involvement about the same things, without being discuss. --Aleenf1 04:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can see also the people above revert without even trying to discuss (Talk:2028 Summer Olympics), so that's the key, as they mean, is the reversion means they gains consensus? --Aleenf1 07:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should say also every people above has been edit, reverted across the Olympics article, consistently/involvement about the same things, without being discuss. --Aleenf1 04:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- While i'm see also somebody reverted the edits as of me, so what is the point, User talk:Kapieli2017, Wikipedian biting back and forth. This is getting stupid, the person who reported never have it to be discuss and the person who keep consistency been bited. Unfortunately. --Aleenf1 04:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)