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:HelenHIL reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Ancient Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HelenHIL (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 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC) to 02:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993"
- 02:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Classification */ Reverting to more objective article after years of vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993"
- 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Classification */"
- 20:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Have just written what the citation says. Please do not make changes before you read the reference"
- 14:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "There is no general agreement about the ancient Macedonian language."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I'm counting 6 non-consecutive reverts in less than 12 hours. The edits are moreover highly POV and unencyclopedic, and laced with hostility. Similar situation at Alexander I of Macedon [1], [2], [3] (removal of sources, POV editing, hostile edit summaries). Also very hostile on their own talkpage, where they responded to my 3RR warning with threats and insults [4] [5]. Clearly a block is needed because this user will not stop reverting. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have done this because of vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993. They are under investigation. HelenHIL (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- HelenHIL did not Violate WP:3RR, Rule # 4 Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language are exempt from the edit-warring policy. No Violation at all. Chip3004 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the diffs provided, the only POV pushing I see is by the OP. Wikipedia is not the place for the Greek/Macedonian culture wars. Oh, and you latched onto the page blanking part of the 3RR rule #4, you missed the "such as" part. HelenHIL has no case to answer here. - Nick Thorne talk 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Care to explain how my edits are POV-pushing? Because they aren't. These articles are watched by a large number of users and were stable and quiet until HelenHIL barged in today and massively POV-pushed, the crudest examples of which are [6] [7] [8]. His edits were reverted by at least 4 different users. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic anyway, since I have never seen you edit these topics (whereas I have been editing them for the last 15 years or so), but among other things, HelenHIL removed sources, altered wording that had been reached after long standing discussions and consensus, inserted POV and unencyclopedic wording, was reverted by many users, all the while hurling wild accusations of "vandalism" and making personal attacks such as the edit summaries above and stuff like this [9]. This editor has barely 100 contribs and made massive changes to relatively quiet articles that had been stable for a long time. As for "latching on", can you point to examples of "obvious vandalism" that HelenHIL supposedly reverted (instead of just taking their accusations at face value)? concrete examples, please. But most importantly, HelenHIL clearly violated 3RR, with 6 reverts in less than 12 hours, as well as edit-warring on other articles. Which, from all indications, looks set to continue. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to see how the boomerang card is being played here. The last stable version of the lede has been built by consensus without any "culture wars", and it is definitely edit-warring if an editor tries to force their own preferred version of the lede without consensus, paired with inflammatory edit summaries ("sockpuppet", "vandalism"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's incredible isn't it? All we do is revert to the status quo ante, the other party reverts a whopping SIX times in 12 hours while shouting "vandalism", and this is then taken at face value. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Khirurg (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really find the comments about "page blanking" etc. as utter and complete arguments from ignorance, that surely demonstrate that these users did not care to read the diffs because there is no such thing and made thin air statements in defense of user that personally attacks other users. Maybe they might need to gain a better understanding about the scope of ANI because it seems that they are not so knowledgeable. Best Othon I (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to see how the boomerang card is being played here. The last stable version of the lede has been built by consensus without any "culture wars", and it is definitely edit-warring if an editor tries to force their own preferred version of the lede without consensus, paired with inflammatory edit summaries ("sockpuppet", "vandalism"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Care to explain how my edits are POV-pushing? Because they aren't. These articles are watched by a large number of users and were stable and quiet until HelenHIL barged in today and massively POV-pushed, the crudest examples of which are [6] [7] [8]. His edits were reverted by at least 4 different users. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic anyway, since I have never seen you edit these topics (whereas I have been editing them for the last 15 years or so), but among other things, HelenHIL removed sources, altered wording that had been reached after long standing discussions and consensus, inserted POV and unencyclopedic wording, was reverted by many users, all the while hurling wild accusations of "vandalism" and making personal attacks such as the edit summaries above and stuff like this [9]. This editor has barely 100 contribs and made massive changes to relatively quiet articles that had been stable for a long time. As for "latching on", can you point to examples of "obvious vandalism" that HelenHIL supposedly reverted (instead of just taking their accusations at face value)? concrete examples, please. But most importantly, HelenHIL clearly violated 3RR, with 6 reverts in less than 12 hours, as well as edit-warring on other articles. Which, from all indications, looks set to continue. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked HelenHIL for 48 hours for violating 3RR and for her personal attacks. As for some comments by others, I see no vandalism by Khirurg that would permit HelenHIL's reverts to be exempt. Indeed, I am puzzled by those allegations, particularly those of "page blanking" and similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)
Page: Lavandula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.45.170.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "move research about oil to the oil section for now"
- 16:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Research section about effects of the plant and its oil existed before and should continue existing whether or not this study exists. You've edited this section before without removing it so I'm not sure why you did just now."
- 07:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "changed to match the "Research" section"
- 06:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Update to match change on the "Lavender oil" page, new source is more recent and more reliable than the non-peer-reviewed ones currently used here."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lavandula."
- 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Single-purpose account */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095684467 by 50.45.170.185 (talk) the talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, supported by a WP:RS source; it is not a forum for airing out your personal grievances, WP:NOTFORUM"
Comments:
User is a WP:SPA with aggressive editing/warring to establish their own position on use of lavender oil. Excessive opionating on Talk:Lavender oil and Talk:Lavandula. Zefr (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I have also opened a noticeboard section for Zefr here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding
- As for the edit warring claims against me, perhaps I misunderstand but this was how I viewed the situation:
- 1. Similar content was shared between two articles, after changing one article I went to the second article to update it as well.
- 2. After this, Zefr reverted my changes by removing the long-standing "Research" section and lede medical information that has been there for years. So I added back the "Research" section.
- 3. After this, Zefr reverted again and said that the "Research" section should only contain research about the plant and not its oil. So I opened a discussion on the talk page about that and advocating for adding the section back.
- 4. Finally, I added the information to the oil section of the article since it is more relevant there. He reverted this too.
- Apologies if this was not the right way to go about this. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, the talk page section about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lavandula#Add_back_%22Research%22_section 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The IP has been clearly edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that Zefr and I were the only two involved in this, wouldn't a block be more appropriate than page protection? (assuming that your conclusion was that I am the source of "persistent disruptive editing"). I'm not requesting to be blocked, I'm just curious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- A different admin decided to protect the page. Take it up with him. And try working on either a consensus wording or another article for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that Zefr and I were the only two involved in this, wouldn't a block be more appropriate than page protection? (assuming that your conclusion was that I am the source of "persistent disruptive editing"). I'm not requesting to be blocked, I'm just curious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Barefoot through the chollas reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Spanish language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barefoot through the chollas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]
Comments:
The talk page link links to Help talk:IPA/Spanish as that is the appropriate place to solve all issues regarding IPA transcriptions of Spanish. Furthermore, at the time I started the thread nobody was edit warring yet. At the top of the Help:IPA/Spanish guide, it says Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first.
and below that it says For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].
At no point in the guide does it say that we need to duplicate the transcriptions. The reason I consider their behavior to be edit warring is that they refused to reply to my reply to their first message in the thread after I moved it back where it belongs (they moved, or rather copied and pasted the thread to another talk page without my permission). At that point I was done and just reverted them back as I've just wasted about 30 minutes on writing a response to them only to get ignored. Then, predictably, they revert me back, now falsely citing For terms that are more relevant to regions...
quoted above (Castellano is clearly not that, I mean look at this). As of now, there still has not been any meaningful response to my lengthy reply to them. Sol505000 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Warned both users. You are both edit warring; I was tempted to block you both, but since you are currently discussing the issue, I have decided to cut you some slack and only issue warnings. Please, both of you, stop reverting each other until a consensus has been reached. Salvio 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Salvio:, thanks for making the effort to try to help out. I've tried to conduct a civil conversation with Sol505000, but it turns out to be impossible. Please review thoroughly his multiple rv tactics, as well as his record of "contribs". The issue regards the Spanish language page, not Help talk:IPA/Spanish, beginning with his deletion of text (accurate text, not placed there by me) on 26 June, for no expressed reason other than "IPA spam", which the transcription that he removed obviously was not. I restored the deletion, as it's uncontroversial useful information for readers. From there we were off to the races, attempts at civil discussion to arrive at consensus failing miserably. It seems to me that the solution is to restore the text to what it was before he started this incident with the mysterious "IPA spam" deletion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Salvio, thanks for the clarifications of the understandable limitations. Level-headed consensus was what I was shooting for, to no avail. Pace e bene. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User: 67.183.248.210 reported by User:2601:84:4501:5B21:3852:A649:D43D:7558 (Result: referred to AN/I)
Page: Boston's Finest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being Report: 67.183.248.210 (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: This User and All of the Users I have Posted here are All Sockpuppets of WorldwideBallcaps. Please Block all of these Accounts, they are the Same Person. All Sockpuppets of this User:
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.125.92.203
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/8.48.5.197
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.12.231.154
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.66.243.217
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.125.92.203
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.169.245.98
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.56.113.238
- User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185
This report is incomplete, this the wrong noticeboard for this report, take it to WP:AVI or WP:ANI if it is seriosu enough. Chip3004 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is Serious. 2601:84:4501:5B21:88B9:1E8B:5395:4298 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- WorldwideBallcaps originally was Blocked and is now a Sockpuppet, using these accounts. 2601:84:4501:5B21:88B9:1E8B:5395:4298 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is notice board for Edit Warring/3RR issues only, This kind of report does not belong at WP:AN3, Take your report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No action will be taken by any admin because this is not the proper venue for this report, this report should be archived immediately by an admin. Chip3004 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:149.97.134.93 reported by User:Unbh (Result: Protected)
Page: Aspartame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.97.134.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095776633 by Nythar (talk) - Disruptive editing"
- 08:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095774175 by Nythar (talk) - Disruptive undoing - the original change was good and appropriate"
- 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095768788 by Unbh (talk)"
- 07:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095661275 by Unbh (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aspartame."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Jumped IP since yesterday - but still pushing unsourced changes Unbh (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:AlsoWukai reported by User:TrottieTrue (Result: Not the proper forum)
Page: Katzenberger Trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlsoWukai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is just the most significant example of the edit warring behaviour by this user. It actually seems to have stopped at the Katzenberger Trial article where it was recently a problem, but AlsoWukai appears to be reverting my edits just for the sake of it now (see below).
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
I raised this at AlsoWukai's talk page here. Two other editors reverted their edits, yet they continued to revert back.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As noted above, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing changes I made to the articles the day before. [28] [29] There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [30], see [31] and [32].
Previously, I raised this editor's behaviour at their talk page here, and at ANI here - in fact I note that the outcome of the ANI case I filed was "FINAL WARNING" for AlsoWukai. There are several examples of warnings at their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlsoWukai Usertalk page] for edit warring since that warning. Their language in the edit summaries is also contentious: "smh" (shaking my head), referring to me as a "troll" etc.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]
Comments:
This editor appears to be engaging in edit warring, and their general behaviour shows signs of incivility. Their general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others. User:Futurix pointed out in the Katzenberger Trial talk page that AlsoWukai seems to be replacing "however" with "but" in their edits. There is no mention of preference at WP:MOS, but most articles appear to use "however" rather than "but" to start sentences. My edits have simply been to comply with what I perceive to be the norm, but in any case, their actions are disruptive and unhelpful.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the proper forum for this report. If you wish, you can take this to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks - done. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Regulov reported by User:GenuineArt (Result: Blocked)
Page: Claire Danes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Regulov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]
Comments:
Edit warring on this article even more than what he did last time on 6 June[43][44] after which the page got fully protected for 2 weeks.
If this was only about edit warring on this article then it would be one thing, but this user has so many WP:DE issues.
- Makes false claims of BLP violation[45][46] despite warning.[47]
- false claims of "no consensus"[48] and "stonewalling"[49] despite another user retaining RfC version.[50]
- rampant bludgeoning all over against everyone who is not agreeing with him,[51][52][[53]
- writing WP:TEXTWALL with new sections even after same content being discussed at the RfC,[54][55]
- is too concerned about WP:WINNING;
"I am going to win this argument"
[56] - casting nationality-based WP:ASPERSIONS; "
the unspoken lemma is: "Filipino national dignity demands redress for this grievous and everlasting insult
"[57] - inability to comply with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and is also violating WP:NOTTRUTH;
"Genuinely reliable sources will never correct this"
,[58]"They googled it, and repeated what Google turned up, and now we are repeating them."
[59] - calling any reliable source ("The List" this time) a "tabloid" [60]
While his recent edit warring justifies a block for edit war, I would still recommend that a WP:TOPICBAN from this subject will be more helpful to stop this disruption. He was already alerted of BLP DS before the cited violations happened.[61] GenuineArt (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am genuinely saddened it has come to this. Every one of GenuineArt's accusations is spurious, except perhaps that I write walls of text, for which I suppose I must apologize. I have worked hard to discuss the many substantive problems raised in the RfC at Claire Danes, and I feel I have been very patient. GenuineArt and TolWol56, the principal defenders of the status quo, threaten sanctions, link essays and guidelines, and repeat "already told you" and "it's been this way for a long time", in preference to discussing the many, detailed problems I and others have identified. The page as it stands is in violation of WP:BLP. The claim that Claire Danes is or has ever been banned entry into the Philippines or the city of Manila, and that distribution or exhibition of her film or television credits is prohibited in the Philippines or in the city of Manila, is contentious: there is real reason to believe it is not true, and I am not the only editor convinced by the arguments made at Talk:Claire Danes that the sources cited are inadequate. Certainly GenuineArt et al. have failed to demonstrate there is currently consensus supporting their preferred version. Until such consensus can be arrived at, the contentious claims must be removed per the BLP policy. I have been told over and over that there is no such violation, and threatened with sanctions (which, lo and behold) for believing otherwise; but detailed arguments to that effect have never been made. I stand by everything I have written, and I encourage everyone who is interested in determining whether I deserve to be sanctioned to read through the entire, admittedly long, dispute, beginning here. Regulov (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure why you are pulling me here. Your false claims like "violation of WP:BLP", "arguments to that effect have never been made", show you won't stop problematic editing and you are not gonna listen. I agree that you need a topic ban from this article and talk page. Ping EdJohnston. TolWol56 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – User:Regulov is blocked 31 hours for long term edit warring. People (at ANI) say that an argument on this article has been running since 2019. The version to which Regulov is reverting seems to enjoy little support on the talk page. I don't share Regulov's opinion that the existing article violates BLP. (In the context of 3RR, articles may be reverted without penalty only in the case of unsourced defamation, which this is not). EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Colinmcdermott reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: 1 week)
Page: Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colinmcdermott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Consensus on talk page. 3v2. Reverted by Russian paid editors."
- 11:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Reported user to COI noticeboard"
- 10:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Vandalism of this page by a suspected paid editor. Will be reporting to COI."
- 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism, agreed by consensus on talk page, comrade."
- 11:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "This is discussed in the Talk section. Please feel free to discuss but do not revert."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
- Earlier EW warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russia#Add_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine,_2022,_to_the_lead
Comments:
Extensive on-going discussion on the talk page, an ill fated COIN thread and personal attacks/aspersions galore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was just in the process of typing this. I would also mention this comment left on Aircorn's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week. Fairly standard edit-warring but the edit summaries are not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)
Page: Lavender oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.45.170.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "The change was made because 3 users agree it is good in the talk page, 2 users involved in the talk pages raised no issues against it, the RSN linking to this discussion raised no issues against it and only commented that "it seems editors have found PMID 33638614 to be an acceptable current review". Please take your individual dissent to the talk page."
- 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Stop edit warring"
- 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "In accordance with Alex's and Pyrrho's views on this journal, adding it back. Please add to the talk page if you think this meta-analysis in this peer-reviewed journal is not a good source and explain why."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lavandula."
- 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Single-purpose account */ new section"
- 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
WP:SPA IP user obsessively edit-wars on articles, talk pages, and discussions in defense of a suboptimal source supporting dubious use of lavender oil for treating anxiety. History of this user's edits show SPA. PP in effect against this IP at Lavandula; PP requested at Lavender oil. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Pyrrho the Skipper has also reverted your disruptive edits.
- I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 4 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.
- The RfC[62] that I made is *not* to determine if the current source should stay in, it's to determine if *more* source should be added. Consensus was already reached on the current source that you keep removing.
- This report is part of Zefr's on-going questionable behavior[63] trying to defend his stance using questionable sources[64] or deleting when all else fails.[65]
- Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Three Revert Rule WP:3RR Applies to Everyone and every article, besides that if you look at the edit history you will see that you made four reverts (Which is considered a violation of 3RR) on June 26th, witheen june 28th and today, it appears that you are continuing to Edit war which is now edit warring. Chip3004 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Zefr made 4 reverts today today against WP:3RR, are you suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Three Revert Rule WP:3RR Applies to Everyone and every article, besides that if you look at the edit history you will see that you made four reverts (Which is considered a violation of 3RR) on June 26th, witheen june 28th and today, it appears that you are continuing to Edit war which is now edit warring. Chip3004 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, Zefr even did copy-editing for the change after consensus was reached, showing that he clearly also acknowledged the consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_oil&diff=prev&oldid=1095463391 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Page protected for a week (see below for comment). Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Zefr reported by User:50.45.170.185 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Lavender oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (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: [71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [73]
Comments:
Part of this on-going issue[74] where Zefr refuses the community's consensus to include reliable secondary sources in articles related to lavender.
Page protected for a week, before it reached the point where someone, probably multiple someones, were going to get blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:12.145.98.24 (Result: No violation)
Page: Big Rig Bounty Hunters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 (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:
- Can't seem to come up with one
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Nothing, really.
Comments: Let's try this again: There goes StealthForce again. He's also editing under SportsSucks55 now. He's also been continously rude and abrasive since at least 2015. 12.145.98.24 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
No violation It sounds like sockpuppetry is the true allegation here, and that's not our department. The reported range has indeed been making the same revert regularly over the past couple of months, never coming near 3RR. That could have been enough to justify a block, but with such an indifferent attitude to initiating a discussion and warning the user reported I cannot consider this to have reached an actionable level. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:86.141.92.244 reported by User:2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F (Result: Semi)
Page: Tunisian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Tunisian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.141.92.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [77]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The pre-edited versions of the articles were written as part of a compromise. The user is attempting to change the article to fit their views. They have been asked to use the talk page to discuss their edits when their edits were undid.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86][87]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [88]
Comments:
2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I previously reported the user 2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F here [89] for removing the sources I added just because they disagree with them and even warned them on their talk page, but they continue to edit war. 86.141.92.244 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected one month. There is nothing on the talk page from either of you. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 reported by User:Lol1VNIO (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page: Ana Marcela Cunha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 (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: [94][95][96]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I tried discussing on my talk page but user continued with really disruptive edit summaries. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours by NJA ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)