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:Aleenf1 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: No violation)
Page: Women's FIH Hockey World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Men's FIH Hockey World Cup (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: [1], [2]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: I tried to persuade user Aleenf1 to stop his disruptive edits, with no success. His only explanations to revert my editions were "MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE and MOS:NOICONS (on the articles summary)," which are incorrect, so in the case of MOS:flags, there is no problem to show flags on lists/tables and they are discouraged on infoboxes (this is not the case). About MOS:icons, they are not allowed in prose format (this isn't the case, either). He also refused to solve this dispute on the talk page. Fma12 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fma12 is breaking the MOS:FLAGS, where "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality", it doesn't look like he/she get it. Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. He/she clearly breaking the manual of style without any consensus. --Aleenf1 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- First of all: I'm "he". Second, according to MOS, flags are suggested to be allowed on infoboxes (and this is about a table). With his reversions, the user not only supressed flags but other paramethers and data added to tables (p.e.: sortable option, number of editions of the tournaments, further notes on template:refn). Furthermore, similar sports articles featuring list of winning teams (p.e. UEFA European Championship, or Copa América) show the respective host countries/cities with their flagicons. Fma12 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Taking other example doesn't reflect that it follow the Manual of Style, and also doesn't reflect that consensus are done by it. --Aleenf1 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind you taking other example from football, field hockey host is awarded to to a city and not represent a country. Therefore is clearly a MOS breaking. --Aleenf1 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hockey is not an isolated item, this format can be also found on rugby union competitions (such as Rugby World Cups), where flags are used. Or can be omitted if a consensus is reached, I don't have a problem with that. But when you reverted the edits you also erased other significative changes, not only the flags. And that's because you were reported. Instead of trying to be reasonable and search a consensus, you preferred to revert all the changes, giving vague summaries such as "mos" without being specific. Just like you're being now. Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your contradiction and lack of valid reasons are proved on this last reversion, where you put "MOS:NOICONS" as the edit summary , a totally wrong statement as long as it refers to "Do not use icons in general article prose" (and a table does not have any 'prose' clearly). Fma12 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is your own opinion, WORDPRECEDENCE still making priority. --Aleenf1 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Until now, all the MOS you cited as in an attempt to justify your disruptive reversions (flags, noicons, and wordprecedence) do not apply to the changes I made, for the reasons explained above. On the contrary, if you disagree with the use of flags, you could have erased them from the table instead of reverting all the changes made, which were more than a simple flag addition. And I'm not giving an opinion, I'm talking about facts. – Fma12 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the facts of breaking MOS, stop your claim of disruptive. You come with your "facts" to rescue your editing. I stop of putting any further comments here. --Aleenf1 15:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not break any MOS and gave enough evidence of that, while you only came here with falacious statements. In fact, I reported you because of your repetitive reversions with no desire of consensus. Once this dispute is solved, I will restore the paramethers you arbitrarily erased. Fma12 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the facts of breaking MOS, stop your claim of disruptive. You come with your "facts" to rescue your editing. I stop of putting any further comments here. --Aleenf1 15:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Until now, all the MOS you cited as in an attempt to justify your disruptive reversions (flags, noicons, and wordprecedence) do not apply to the changes I made, for the reasons explained above. On the contrary, if you disagree with the use of flags, you could have erased them from the table instead of reverting all the changes made, which were more than a simple flag addition. And I'm not giving an opinion, I'm talking about facts. – Fma12 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is your own opinion, WORDPRECEDENCE still making priority. --Aleenf1 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your contradiction and lack of valid reasons are proved on this last reversion, where you put "MOS:NOICONS" as the edit summary , a totally wrong statement as long as it refers to "Do not use icons in general article prose" (and a table does not have any 'prose' clearly). Fma12 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hockey is not an isolated item, this format can be also found on rugby union competitions (such as Rugby World Cups), where flags are used. Or can be omitted if a consensus is reached, I don't have a problem with that. But when you reverted the edits you also erased other significative changes, not only the flags. And that's because you were reported. Instead of trying to be reasonable and search a consensus, you preferred to revert all the changes, giving vague summaries such as "mos" without being specific. Just like you're being now. Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind you taking other example from football, field hockey host is awarded to to a city and not represent a country. Therefore is clearly a MOS breaking. --Aleenf1 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Taking other example doesn't reflect that it follow the Manual of Style, and also doesn't reflect that consensus are done by it. --Aleenf1 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- First of all: I'm "he". Second, according to MOS, flags are suggested to be allowed on infoboxes (and this is about a table). With his reversions, the user not only supressed flags but other paramethers and data added to tables (p.e.: sortable option, number of editions of the tournaments, further notes on template:refn). Furthermore, similar sports articles featuring list of winning teams (p.e. UEFA European Championship, or Copa América) show the respective host countries/cities with their flagicons. Fma12 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
No violation Both of you went up to the line that day, then stopped. The discussion above has clearly been testy but it is infinitely preferable to further edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
User:84.250.14.116 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
Page: GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.250.14.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "/* History */ Add origo source back, because its absence caused confusion"
- 22:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Remove Template:POV and Template:Multiple issues: Nobody has brought it up to WP:NPOVN and it's not apparent (to me) what is being disputed as non-neutral"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) to 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight"
- 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "+formerly Android Hardening project (origo.hu, pro-linux.de, golem.de sources)"
Tool results are above. My notes follow:
- Removal of footnotes[8]
- Re-including mention of "Android Hardening" PLUS adding it to the lead[9]
- Removed article issue template[10]. Note: NPOV and cherry-picking discussions abound on Talk:GrapheneOS and there is little sign of consensus.
- Expanded usage of origo.hu source.[11]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Warning/Awareness of 3RR[12]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* GitHub (or Gitlab) as sources at Wikipedia */ Comment on search, and Footnotes have been added"
Comments:
Origo.hu source was previously removed as poor unreliable source.[13]
Warning/Awareness of 3RR[14]
Note: Tagging or templating established wording in the Infobox[15]
Note: Lack of responsive discussion of merits of the Origo.hu source, and focus on editor behavior here.[16]
Aside note: Removed footnotes were re-added as a new section[17] with ridiculous "original research" tags and then a template[18], and then another.[19] Yae4 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I am glad to see 84.x now using "reliability" of sources as a criterion. "Notability" of sources had been their primary criterion in previous discussions. Another important policy guideline is: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (from WP:CONS). I have done my best to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT, etc., although it was easy to fall into 3RR when "collaborating" with a series of SPA's and meat and sock puppets who don't seem to know or care about wikipedia guidelines. I'm no expert, but I do attempt to present my positions, and consider others', in terms of consistency with guidelines. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I will refrain from further edits, but note ongoing edit warring by SPA EndariV and promotional edits by sleeper Seb3thehacker. This follows a pattern, if you get what I mean. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment. See 84.x refusal to discuss merits: "I'm done with you." Special:Diff/1099617760
- You'll have to talk this with someone else, my patience ran short a long ago. I had reverted it the same minute because it was not meant to cause distress. I said a long ago I'm disengaging debates with you. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- You said, "I'd like to disengage and focus most of my contributions on other articles from now on. Sorry. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[20]
- I hesitate to call another editor a liar, or a hounder, but you almost immediately continued to focus most of your contributions on the same article after saying you would stop. After being asked to stop "engaging" at my Talk page, you continue[21] and continue[22] Everyone is entitled to change their opinions, and revert their own edits to not "cause distress", but some of your statements do look like bad faith to me. That said, I have seen your voluminous criticisms, and will attempt to be more welcoming of puppets, sleeper accounts, SPAs, and IP editors. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Improper ANEW, no evidence of a 3RR violation. I've enforced editor consensus from the talk page and acted in good faith in general. I was about to slap you with
{{Uw-disruptive3}}
for your initiation to add disputed/contentious statements about "open-source" to the article for the fifth time, despite several (3-4) other editors disagreeing with you, but did assume good faith. Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight
: Your edit was incorporated assuming good faith with Special:Diff/1099460465 before you opened this ANEW, on the basis that consensus exists about "open-source"ness, but the consensus may have been unclear before being reverted; the consensus should not be unclear to me anymore, because @EndariV: reverted Yae4's edits again: Special:Diff/1099481390. Nothing to do here.- The diffs you have shown are 1 edit / revert. I have not been a participant to the "attempt to resolve" on talk, nor shown awareness to it.
- ANEW is not a place for resolving content disputes (or to attempt to get deprecate editors who disagree with you); see WP:DR. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is also no warning/awareness of 3RR demonstrated. The 3RR "awareness" linked here is to a different topic, where User:Yae4 was the violator of 3RR. I had reverted Yae4 once in that former scenario, Yae4 reverted back (violated 3RR) and got partial blocked for a week. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Other signs of bad faith behavior to account for AN/I:
I hope that the admins can see with this better which editors may be edit warring or actively engaging in disruptive editing, if any. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC); amended 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
References
|
- User:Bbb23 has removed a timeline of edit warring from here. Special:Diff/1099569822 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've re-added it but within a collapse box. I don't believe it was right to remove that. — Czello 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Bbb23 has removed a timeline of edit warring from here. Special:Diff/1099569822 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: No violation User warned)
Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time
Diffs of the user's reverts:
in less than 24 hours:
- 21 July, 13:30 [23] Edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I am working; I did not interfere when you made your edits, not for two years when you were adding undue edits; please show some respect"
- 21 July, 10:07 [24] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099429737 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Forget it. it is not going to happen. serial abuse of WP:UNDUE is not what this page is about; take it to the talk page"
- 20 July, 17:57 [25] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099420959 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Take it to the talk page. It i sentirely UNDUE., unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions"
- 20 July,17:51 [26] Edit summary: "the number of spokes is undue, unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
- 20 July,17:44 [27] Edit summary: "undue" (Reverting the contributions of anonymous user 120.57.187.243)
- 20 July, 17:43 [28] Edit summary: "this is not a place to dicker with your obsessions Most scholars do not mention 32 at all." (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
- 20 July, 17:42 [29] Edit summary: "this is not a disquisition about dharmachakras having spokes that are in multiples of 8" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
- 20 July, 17:40 [30] Edit summary: "as usual dicker about undue things. that is not asher's point" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit summary: "please respect the 3RR rule". Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me on his Talk Page: [31] ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again.")
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me [33]: ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again."), so I would prefer not to notice him, but I am posting the notice as I think this is reglementary [34].
Comments:
Systematic reverts and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [35]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already warned previously for similar behaviour [36], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
No violation. It's a little difficult to take stock of the diffs provided - it would have been more convenient if they'd had dates as well as clock times, since three different days are involved - but AFAICS, there's no 3RR violation here. For example, User:पाटलिपुत्र, the diffs you have listed as no. 3 - 8 above were consecutive (as were various others), and consequently count as one edit for edit warring purposes. Please see the pink banner at WP:3RR.Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I don't know how to make it clearer: from 1 to 8 above, you have 4 reverts + 1 set of consecutive reverts which counts as 1, so that counts as 5 reverts in 24 hours... The accounting is clear, but what is even more important is the systematic revert pattern and the verbal abuse. I added dates for your convenience. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
? No, from 1 to 8 above, you have 2 reverts (nos. 1 and 2) plus 1 set of 6 consecutive reverts which count as 1 (nos. 3 - 8). 2 + 6 = 8. So that counts as 3 reverts.Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC).- @Bishonen: 1, 2 and 3 are not consecutive (3 is certainly not consecutive, as it follows a contribution of mine), so that's already 3 reverts. I agree 4-8 may be consecutive, although they are reverting two different users. Even in this case, that's 4 reverts in all. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for butting in, but I also see it as four reverts, if I just take one from each consecutive series, these four: [37], [38], [39], and [40]. That said, I don't think it was a particularly willful violation. Had to avoid work for a few minutes. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- @Bishonen: I don't know how to make it clearer: from 1 to 8 above, you have 4 reverts + 1 set of consecutive reverts which counts as 1, so that counts as 5 reverts in 24 hours... The accounting is clear, but what is even more important is the systematic revert pattern and the verbal abuse. I added dates for your convenience. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
User:LakeGarda reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Blocked along with User:Ywetapap888)
Page: Milan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LakeGarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099705571 by Peaceray (talk) I don't like lies you know"
- 05:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099703471 by Peaceray (talk) too odd"
- 05:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099703006 by Peaceray (talk)"
- 04:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099700374 by Ywetapap888 (talk)"
- 04:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099696836 by Ywetapap888 (talk)"
- 04:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "new account again? revert vandalism"
- 22:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099651055 by Ywetapap888 (talk) new account? reverting vandalism"
- 22:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099647108 by Ywetapap888 (talk) edit warring over"
- 22:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "revert new user"
- 20:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099581425 by Ywetapap888 (talk) Seriously?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
- 05:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 05:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC) on User talk:LakeGarda "/* July 2022 */ Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule, WP:BRD, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS"
Comments:
This editor is unwilling to discuss changes & is well beyond 3 reverts. Peaceray (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I myself am at the three-revert limit after restoring it to the last-known good version before the edit war, please consider restoring that version. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked LakeGarda and User:Ywetapap888 for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bbb23, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItalianConquest might also be of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I corrected the SPI link in the last user's comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Snowflake91 reported by User:93.138.65.235 (Result: Filer warned)
Page: 2012–13 Slovenian First League (men's handball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowflake91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I proposed the third opinion.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]
Comments:
You can block us both if you want and than someone impartial can edit the page properly.
- You added unsourced material and have been asked two or three times to provide a source, and yet you just revert back with WP:OTHERSTUFF reasons, so dont bother. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again you are trying to go against the established Wikipedia handball standard and consensus. There is no practice of sourcing capacities in handball season articles. Nowhere! Apart for that you are rude and uncooperative. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus that this content doesn't need to be sourced? Or is it that other articles just aren't as well sourced as they should be? — Czello 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the consensus that it does not need to be sourced in each individual season article. Just check. Deleting this here is not only disruptvie but also biased against one selected country. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to this consensus, or where it was achieved? — Czello 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus can steam from practice. It is an implied consensus. WP: EDITCON If you want to change it you can open the debate at some sports project. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Just because no one provided references on many handball articles throughout years, that doesn't mean it is now a "consensus" to not use them. And even if there would be a consensus for that, how can you even add something to the article that has no source anywhere, from where is the information taken? For over 60% of those tiny venues of Slovenian handball clubs, which are literally just school gyms, you wont find a capacity numbers anywhere on the internet, I checked everything, so some editors obviously looked at the pictures of the venues and made up some random approximate numbers by themselves, which is full WP:OR. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- See, tipical answer, using words like this. It is not my fault that you could not find enough sources. Why cannot you participate in the talk page normally in a civilised manner? 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't enough. Uncited material can be challenged and removed at any time. — Czello 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Just because no one provided references on many handball articles throughout years, that doesn't mean it is now a "consensus" to not use them. And even if there would be a consensus for that, how can you even add something to the article that has no source anywhere, from where is the information taken? For over 60% of those tiny venues of Slovenian handball clubs, which are literally just school gyms, you wont find a capacity numbers anywhere on the internet, I checked everything, so some editors obviously looked at the pictures of the venues and made up some random approximate numbers by themselves, which is full WP:OR. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus can steam from practice. It is an implied consensus. WP: EDITCON If you want to change it you can open the debate at some sports project. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to this consensus, or where it was achieved? — Czello 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the consensus that it does not need to be sourced in each individual season article. Just check. Deleting this here is not only disruptvie but also biased against one selected country. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you list those "established handball standard and consensus"? WikiProject Handball is more or less dead and doesnt have any official guidlines, and yes you need to provide sources for everything if needed, I dont care what other handball articles have as a huge majority of handball articles are poor in styling, unsourced, many original research content etc., you cannot just include some random approximate numbers that you made up by yourself, the capacity sources for those tiny primary school gyms doesnt exist anywhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problem of discussing individual capacities and comparing sources on the talk pages, in fact I would very much prefer that. Instead I got your uncooperative editing and removing the whole category altogether. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, so when you find a reliable source for capacity of all 14 venues that are listed in the article, you can add capacities back. And remember that capacity may vary throughout years, so even if you find something, it doesnt mean that those numbers were the same back in 2012, as this article is about the 2012–13 season. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problem of discussing individual capacities and comparing sources on the talk pages, in fact I would very much prefer that. Instead I got your uncooperative editing and removing the whole category altogether. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus that this content doesn't need to be sourced? Or is it that other articles just aren't as well sourced as they should be? — Czello 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again you are trying to go against the established Wikipedia handball standard and consensus. There is no practice of sourcing capacities in handball season articles. Nowhere! Apart for that you are rude and uncooperative. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The underlying issue is the IP attempting to force the information into the article without discussion. The correct procedure is to discuss the situation at Talk:2012–13 Slovenian First League (men's handball); I don't see any use of the article talk page in the IP's edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried that and proposed many times, but he did not want to discuss. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Your one post to the talk page was a minute before this one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, check edit summaries. The editor in question started cooperating only when I started this thread here, so I believe I did the right thing. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Your one post to the talk page was a minute before this one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried that and proposed many times, but he did not want to discuss. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We resolved the dispute. Thanks everyone for help. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Result: The filing IP, 93.138.65.235, is warned they may be blocked the next time they make an unsourced change to the article. The dispute is about handball arena capacities. If there is a good source for these, I haven't seen it yet. When there is no good source Wikipedia can probably get along without the information. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Hipal reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: No violation)
Pages:
- International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Venezuelan presidential crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 2019 Venezuelan blackouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- [47] (International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis)
- [48] (Venezuelan presidential crisis)
- [49] (2019 Venezuelan blackouts)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [50][51][52] (International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis)
- [53][54][55] (Venezuelan presidential crisis)
- [56][57][58] (2019 Venezuelan blackouts)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60][61] (See also User talk:NoonIcarus#verifikado.com as a reference as a whole)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]
Comments: Slow pace edit warring over the course of several days. The user has repeatedly removed a reference, verifikado.com, disputing its reliability. While at first did not provide reasons to support the dispute, citing apparent personal impressions (saying "doesnt appear reliable
" in his first edit summaries), in the last reverts Hipal has cited WP:REFSPAM in the last reverts.
Hipal has argued that the onus lies on me to demonstrate the reference reliability. I responded by saying that the source does not show any apparent concern, not being a blog or a self-published outlet, that its reliability remained undisputed for years, and that per WP:BRD, the onus lies on them to demonstrate its unreliability. Another editor, SandyGeorgia, has specifically supported the source's reliability when asked about it. In the following restorations, I tried to include changes to address the voiced concerns, such as adding complementary sources ([63]), but these were discarded as well ([64]). In his last response to my comments, the editor has asked me to "not waste his time", which I fear that can show an unwillingness to discuss the issue further.
Since this is mostly a content dispute issue, I request the stable versions, before the reverts, to be restored ([65][66][67]), while the discussion is allowed to continue in the articles talk pages. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would my standard offer, highlighted at the top of my talk page, help as we continue to build consensus,
I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.
- NoonIcarus, it was you who added it each time, correct?
- I vaguely recall a fourth article, perhaps another. Let me look. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Sachs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Expansion_attempts_of_Venezuela_section. If I recall correctly, this is where I first encountered verifikado.com. NoonIcarus adds itI revert. I'd expected the other uses of verifikado.com to go as easily.
- I believe this is the only article talk page discussion. --Hipal (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Sachs is the article where I last proposed the reference and where I have stopped adding it, although I thank you for providing the talk page and our comments with it. What's at stake here is the unrelated removal of the rrference in the aforementioned articles, which were already in place for years (since 2019 at least if I recall correctly), with different contexts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
No violation Although they have clearly been of concern to the editors working on these pages, the reverts have neither been frequent nor recent enough to rise to the level of edit warring actionable here, as the original post somewhat concedes. The parties are advised to continue to resolve this through discussion, bringing others in through the processes available to them if they would like, in order to reach a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
User:37.145.62.194 reported by User:KNHaw (Result: Malformed)
There's an anon IP user that is making repeated edits to Aswan Dam with an English language source that does not support their claim and a Russian language source. Attempts to reach out to user [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aswan_Dam#Why_is_he_trying_to_hide_the_truth?] have resulted in personal attacks. Editor is also using a second IP, but per wp:good faith I assume this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry but just posting form a different location (home vs. school). There have been reverts and counter reverts over multiple days that fall just shy of the three revert rule (wp:3rr) but this is clearly becoming an edit war. I previously reported this to wp:aiv and was told to take it here.
I have notified user per the an3-notice template and also posted to the article talk page to begin the discussion here.
Can someone please help us out on this?
KNHaw (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
User:RayLucero123 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RayLucero123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]
Comments:
User:37.145.62.194 reported by User:KNHaw (Result: Semi)
Page: Aswan Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.145.62.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: primarily here but a welcome here too
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff of talk page posting notice and link to talk page
Comments:
Originally posted above without using proper form - this is a repost.
Above anon IP is making repeated edits to Aswan Dam with an English language source that does not support their claim and a Russian language source. Attempts to reach out to user here have resulted in personal attacks. Editor is also using a second IP, but per wp:good faith I assume this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry but just posting from a different location (e.g. home vs. school). There have been reverts and counter reverts over multiple days that fall just shy of the three revert rule (wp:3rr) because they're spread over a longer time but this is clearly becoming an edit war. I previously reported this to wp:aiv and was told to take it here.
I have notified user per the an3-notice template and also posted to the article talk page to begin the discussion here.
Can someone please help us out on this?
--KNHaw (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two months due to long term edit warring. Please note that sources don't have to be in English; we would normally accept good-quality Russian sources if any can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. I'll take further use of the Russian source on good faith and extend an olive branch to the editor.
- For the future reference, do we have written guidance on foreign language sources? I mean, how do know a source is "good-quality" if I literally can't read a word of it? Is there a notice/help board where I can request someone with fluency to review? KNHaw (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:NONENG. Though if a Russian firm built the dam, be aware that national pride might have influenced some reporters who covered the issue. The Aswan Dam is a big enough issue that normally you would expect to see it written about in English-language books by this time. So if you search in Google Books you might come up with some English-language results. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your help with this. I had poked through wp:sources but hadn't thought of wp:var. It's good to see the policy laid out like that. KNHaw (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:NONENG. Though if a Russian firm built the dam, be aware that national pride might have influenced some reporters who covered the issue. The Aswan Dam is a big enough issue that normally you would expect to see it written about in English-language books by this time. So if you search in Google Books you might come up with some English-language results. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Engprat reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Socks blocked)
Page: The Boys (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Engprat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100155528 by Alex 21 (talk) This is not a sock edit, my friend engprat and I both agree on this and found evidence"
- 22:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099869666 by Alex 21 (talk) Please don't change this, because this show is one of my favorite shows and I want it to reach a wider audience. I also heard from pretty much all critics that its the best superhero show, and that it's one of the best written shows also."
- 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The show has received critical acclaim according to most media critics [1]"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "[2]"
- 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The series has received critical acclaim with its first season getting 85% in rotten tomatoes with over 110 reviews, and the succeeding seasons each got 97% with over a 110 reviews."
- 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
- 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Boys (TV series)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The editor has now also violated WP:MEAT, by requesting that their "friend" Eaglestack98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make the same edits; edit and MEAT violation. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- Result: It is Confirmed that User:Engprat and User:Eaglestack98 are being operated by the same person, so both accounts are blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Novishock reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Jorge Rafael Videla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Novishock (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:
Will not engage on talk page. Discussion there already present on the topic. Editor has prejudicial point of view "yanquicentrista" (yankee-centric) and does states he will not engage in discussion on the topic in his edit summary. MartinezMD (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
User:DannyWard888 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DannyWard888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372609 by Ingenuity (talk)"
- 15:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372122 by Ingenuity (talk)"
- 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
- 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Warning given on talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)