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: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: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 [1][2]. (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 [3], [4]and [5]. 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. [6] 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: [7]
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: Warned)
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: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]
Comments:
Page has now been protected for a week.[21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Result: User:ForcedAnonymity is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 26 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: [22]
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: Blocked)
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)
Blocked – 72 hours for edit warring. User:Aleenf1 has recently been disputing in a similar way on other articles. They disagree about the style to be used for place names. E.g. 'Calgary, Alberta Canada' versus 'Calgary, Canada'. See this diff. It is not easy to find a recent edit which is not a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:JohnPaos reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnPaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]. More or less stable version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
This is an edit-warring issue, not 3RR, though I have no doubt they'll go on if I reverted again.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
- JohnPaos (talk · contribs) really doesn't like Keith Olbermann, and wants to add a laundry list of perceived and sketchily-sourced malapropisms or criticisms to their article. There is a historyt of BLP violations, politics-realted vproblems, and socking. I would block indef at this point, but it's not clear-cut enough for me to not consider myself involved. There are other issues Ken Penders that go back to their very first edit, and which they appear intent on revisiting. I don't think this editor can be trusted to edit any biographies or anything to do with politics, and I think a topic ban is futile. Acroterion (talk)
The articles are verified and backed up. This is not a violation and I have no bone to pick with mr olbermann. The articles are all fact and verified.JohnPaos (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- They're up to five or six reverts now. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And another, bringing it to 7RR today by my count. The editor quite clearly has refused to read any of the policy or guidelines shared with them on their Talk page and others, including WP:3RR, and is simply insisting that they are "right". General Ization Talk 00:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now veering off into NPA, NLT, and demands that they be "banned". General Ization Talk 00:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now at 8RR. Clearly neither stable nor competent enough to be trusted to edit further here. General Ization Talk 00:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And another, bringing it to 7RR today by my count. The editor quite clearly has refused to read any of the policy or guidelines shared with them on their Talk page and others, including WP:3RR, and is simply insisting that they are "right". General Ization Talk 00:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Helwr reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Sock blocked)
Page: Doug Mastriano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095022023 by Praxidicae (talk) biased sources"
- 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "removed biased intro"
- 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094809359 by Ser! (talk) gain consensus at talk page before adding biased sources"
- 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094745633 by Ser! (talk) vandalism"
- 04:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "removed biased hullabaloo"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
this has been a long term edit war that they've been warned about and I suspect there may be some sock puppetry as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Mpaniello reported by User:Ravenswing (Result: Blocked)
Page: Medieval technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mpaniello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]
Comments: Editor with a handful of edits [36] both edit-warring against multiple editors, as well as resorting to personal attacks [37]. Ravenswing 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours siteblocked since they resorted to personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:107.142.100.87 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
Page: Lauren Witzke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.142.100.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095032058 by MaxnaCarta (talk) removed first line meant to slander, clarified other parts"
- 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031852 by LizardJr8 (talk) if you were acting in good faith you'd make individual edits or debate certain points, but you're not so you're not acting in good faith. you're acting as a political activist"
- 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031445 by LizardJr8 (talk) sorry for the personal attack but you can't allow such a poorly written article to stand, it is against Wikipedia rules"
- 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031151 by Isabelle Belato (talk) I fixed it by removing your leftist propaganda and actually speaking about why Witzke was in the news, for being a Republican Senate candidate. Go cry about abortions, cat lady."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Given the personal attacks, this is a siteblock rather than a partial block. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:67.164.162.32 reported by User:Alexcalamaro (Result: Blocked)
Page: Bob Dorough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.164.162.32 (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:
- 20:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bob Dorough."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Comments made in the edit descriptions by multiple users
Comments:
Subtle vandalism constantly removing a link to a TV show. It started a year ago (dif), again in February 2022 (dif), and now again. A temporary block may serve as a warning to avoid this behaviour in the future. Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:BiasReverter reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BiasReverter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095118139 by Shadow4dark (talk) As somebody in the Turkish military, I can tell you that's not true. Turkey was involved in RSM from 2015-2021, which was a non-combat security providing mission. The source is literally right there after the bullet point mentioning RSM. Again, you can edit specific parts instead of reverting the whole thing."
- 13:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095117487 by Shadow4dark (talk) Vandalism. Read what I wrote."
- 13:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095116681 by Shadow4dark (talk) Turkish involvement in the war itself ended in 2014. That section mentions only ISAF, not RSM. Don't vandalize my edits. You can change the specific part you that disagree with and update it to make sense."
- 12:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Added codes, changed Rojava to the actual belligerent SDF, cleaned up timeline."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on List of wars involving Turkey."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
They ignoring talk page consensus and adding WP:OR also not the first time edit wars [[38]] Shadow4dark (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States/Archive_3#Afganistan_war
- Another consensus was reached. You need to learn the difference between a war and an occupation, also the difference in providing arms/security and providing actual combat troops. Otherwise, let's include the Ukraine war and Azerbaijan war on Turkey's page, since technically they supported them considerably more than Afghanistan. BiasReverter (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- are you editing logged out? Shadow4dark (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- War ended in 2014. Occupation ended in 2021. BiasReverter (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- are you editing logged out? Shadow4dark (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and block evasion/editing logged out with Special:contributions/5.151.88.4.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BiasReverter Shadow4dark (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:J2337 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page: The Walking Dead (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J2337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "YouTube is blacklisted"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Nothing wrong with linking stuff mate"
- 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 09:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- 09:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* The Walking Dead (2010–2022) */"
- 09:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* The Walking Dead (2010–2022) */"
- 09:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
- 14:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Walking Dead (franchise)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
repeatedly adding fan cruft and overlinking, asekd to stop and was told "linking is fine" and they don't appear to be willing to engage in any discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
User:162.156.22.32 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
Page: Martin Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.156.22.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); also Hisachi Aloychi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [39] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
- [40] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
- [41] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
- [42] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
- Consecutive edits made from 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 20:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- 18:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Martin Bryant."
- 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Martin Bryant."
- 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Martin Bryant."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
IP edit wars over attempts to insert false death date into article and other unconstructive changes. After 3RR warning, resumes EW as Hisachi Aloychi. General Ization Talk 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)