Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) →User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: ): Blocked (using responseHelper) |
Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) →User:187.245.65.79 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 395: | Line 395: | ||
*{{AN3|pb}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|pb}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:187.245.65.79]] reported by [[User:Tgeorgescu]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:187.245.65.79]] reported by [[User:Tgeorgescu]] (Result: Page semi-protected) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Book of Exodus}} |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Book of Exodus}} |
||
Line 419: | Line 419: | ||
Already warned previously by {{u|GPinkerton}}. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 02:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
Already warned previously by {{u|GPinkerton}}. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 02:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|p}} (well, semi-protected). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Struthious Bandersnatch]] reported by [[User:Ivar the Boneful]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Struthious Bandersnatch]] reported by [[User:Ivar the Boneful]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 11:43, 25 September 2020
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:Francis Schonken reported by User:Nemo bis (Result: )
Page: Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: special:permalink/979397121
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- special:diff/979395635
- special:diff/979396533
- special:diff/979397121
- (not yet?)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/979397752
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/979400696
Comments:
Francis Schonken refuses to explain the reasoning behind their reverts. After reverting an edit, Francis Schonken typically sends a 3RR warning to the reverted editor, but then refuses to discuss those warnings when told they are incorrect ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). Several admins and other users have already pointed out this behaviour is not constructive ([14] [15] [16] [17]). One-to-one discussion therefore seems unlikely to be productive. Nemo 14:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is currently at Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)#Closed access redundant URL. I'm sure the issue can be settled amicably there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello User:Nemo bis. In your opinion is Francis's optimism justified? Will the linked thread allow the issue to be settled? It seems to me that one or both parties may have crossed 3RR, so this reverting had better not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I don't share such optimism. Francis Schonken has been edit warring with dozens of users and administrators, always throwing around heavy-handed and misguided readings of policy. We might find an amicable solution on the specific case, but the user needs a third party opinion on the overall pattern if we want to break this vicious circle. Nemo 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:2C6:4680:6750:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Gengis Gat (Result: Blocked)
Page: Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:2C6:4680:6750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User keeps altering the team ranking without consensus. Another contributor and me have tried to discuss the issue in the talk page, but the user refuses to engage there. In the last diffs they even deleted the reference (made in the article's comment) to the discussion in the talk page.
--Gengis Gat (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess_Olympiad&diff=977093644&oldid=862982103 (and following comments in the paragraph)
- Blocked – 48 hour block of the /64 range. The IP editor has been making lots of reverts since 31 August but has never posted on a talk page. Let me know if semiprotection becomes needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Lima Bean Farmer reported by User:Namiba (Result: No action)
Page: List of Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign endorsements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]
Comments:The user refuses to engage with an ongoing discussion and instead removes cited content.
- User:Namiba, it was you who was edit warring. Once there is reason for the deletion of an endorsement, it should be deleted. Then you can use the talk page and come to a consensus on inclusion. Instead, Namiba continued to break standard endorsement policies and continued to add this back, even after another user explained on the talk page why it should not be added. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's not what the other user wrote. Regardless, you failed to discuss the matter on the talk page and continued to engage in edit-warring and ignore a call to discuss the matter.--User:Namiba 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Namiba, you did not give me the chance to discuss. After the first time I deleted it, and the second and third time, you had the opportunity to use the talk page and continued to add it back. Even when you finally used the talk page, you still added it back. The other user quotes the rule for adding groups which says independent sources or official sources of the group should be cited which you did not. When you continue to add Crystal ball edits, they should be deleted before discussion. Not providing a proper source provides means for deletion, adding it back is edit warring. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's not what the other user wrote. Regardless, you failed to discuss the matter on the talk page and continued to engage in edit-warring and ignore a call to discuss the matter.--User:Namiba 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article is currently in the status quo ante condition. I see where Namiba asked about the source two weeks ago, and another editor said it was unreliable. Nonetheless, Namiba re-added the material yesterday. I don't think any administrative action needs taken, provided Namiba goes back to the talk page and gets consensus among editors before trying to add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Let's close this with no action. Salvio 08:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I went to the talk page on September 8 and it sat uncontested until the user removed the content again on September 21. How can you say that I did not give the user a chance to use the talk page?--User:Namiba 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Grufo reported by User:Vice regent (Result: )
Page: Concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grufo (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:
- 02:50, September 23, 2020, undid this edit. Basically moved most of the article's sections under the heading of "Slavery and concubinage". As Grufo's edit summary indicates, this was a revert.
- 02:55, September 23, 2020, undid this edit
- 03:23, September 23, 2020, this edit removes some of the content I added to a different section. Might not count as a revert.
- 03:44, September 23, 2020, undid all the content added in this edit
Edit: Since the report was filed, Grufo has made two more reverts:
- 11:16, September 23, 2020, removed most/all the content added in this edit
- 17:36, September 23, 2020, removes most/all the content added in this edit
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Concubinage#Concubinage_and_slavery
Comments: Grufo was blocked for edit warring on this very article by Oshwah a mere 10 days ago. They appealed their block on the grounds that they technically didn't commit 4 reverts. That's WP:GAME. 331dot declined their appeal as "You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring". Similarly they may not have committed 4 reverts (#3 may not be a revert) but they have made at least 3 reverts in less than an hour. I have suggested they seek an RfC for their changes but they clearly prefer to edit-war.VR talk 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: since filing this report, they have clearly made at least 5 reverts in the last 24 hours.VR talk 18:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Here we are again. Let me collect the data, because I think I would like to point out that the edit-warrior is Vice regent and not me. --Grufo (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Diffs of Vice regent's reverts:
- 03:53, 21 September 2020 undid the attempt of re-organizing the page as per Talk:Concubinage § Common features of pre-modern concubinage
- 02:52, 23 September 2020 undid the same content as before, without discussion but only an announcement
- 03:28, 23 September 2020 re-inserted what had been previously disputed at Talk:Contubernium § NPOV
- 03:36, 23 September 2020 undid the split concerning ancient Rome between concubinatus and contubernium
- I have tried to develop a useful discussion with Vice regent, but I have found a war instead. --Grufo (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Of those, only #1 and #2 are reverts and they are days apart. In general, I try to limit myself to 1RR.VR talk 04:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Besides that re-merging the paragraph about ancient Rome is a revert, and so it is re-inserting a disputed content elsewhere, if you go to my Talk page and see the block you talk about, you will probably notice that I had contested it with exactly the same motivation: I had not violated the WP:3RR rule. You know what the answer was? “You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring”. --Grufo (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Of those, only #1 and #2 are reverts and they are days apart. In general, I try to limit myself to 1RR.VR talk 04:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Diffs of Vice regent's reverts:
- Discussion on the data presented by Vice regent
- 02:50, 23 September, 2020: As mentioned in the summary, my edit is a revert of Vice regent's revert (03:53, 21 September 2020) – see point 1. discussed in my list
- 02:55, 23 September, 2020: My edit is a revert of Vice regent's second revert (02:52, 23 September 2020) – see point 2. discussed in my list
- 03:23, 23 September 2020: Moving a text freshly inserted into the page to a different paragraph does not count as a revert or anything, and I don't even know why this edit is mentioned here
- 03:44, 23 September 2020: The edit concerns the text already disputed at Talk:Contubernium § NPOV and copied here by Vice regent
- --Grufo (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion on the data presented by Vice regent
- Other problematic examples of Vice regent's destructive approach concern their re-insertion or revert of disputed content without searching for consensus, but only leaving announcements. See for example:
Vice regent's announcement Vice regent's controversial edit Action Discussion 02:15, 20 May 2020 02:30, 20 May 2020 Moved the page Sexual slavery in Islam to Concubinage in Islam (a four-month long dispute has followed at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam) 14:55, 14 September 2020 14:55, 14 September 2020 Changed the first sentence of the page Sexual slavery in Islam in a way that would have raised concerns – as it in fact happened 15:25, 14 September 2020 16:40, 14 September 2020 16:40, 14 September 2020 Restored a very dubious and poorly written text in Concubinage – for the discussion see Talk:Concubinage § Roman 18:36, 14 September 2020 12:16, 19 September 2020 12:17, 19 September 2020
12:30, 19 September 2020Restored the same dubious text + POV about the fact that the WP:LEAD of the Concubinage article should be about sexual slavery 16:04, 19 September 2020 03:53, 21 September 2020 02:52, 23 September 2020 Removed the current differentiation between voluntary and involuntary concubinage from the Concubinage article 02:50, 23 September 2020 11:35, 23 September 2020 11:34, 23 September 2020 Restored what had been opposed by several editors at Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam#Source_needed 12:06, 23 September 2020
- Update: Grufo has now made an additional revert: 11:16 September 23, 2020, which removes, among other things, the content I added here.VR talk 11:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your content is safe at Concubinage in China. Do you actually read the edit summaries and the discussions? --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is this very fresh revert from Vice regent, in line with another disputed edit from the same editor on the same passage, which erased this intervention of mine. My intervention was in line with the discussion at Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam#Source_needed. --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Slow-motion disaster going down on Vicente Gómez Umpiérrez
A bunch of people seem to be going ham on this article reverting each other to change the name of the football club this guy is from. Might warrant looking into (I have no clue who's right). {} 10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User:96.241.151.80 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )
Page: Sunny Hostin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.241.151.80 (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: [49]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]
Comments:
96.241.151.80 keeps adding superfluous details to the personal life section even after they were told that said details violate WP:DUE. KyleJoantalk 11:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to the assertions above, the proposed information does not violate WP:DUE because it provides information explicitly set forth in every source cited, both present and in the past, for this assertion. Instead, KyleJoan is violating WP:DUE by selectively excluding information regarding an alleged racial harassment episode. KyleJoan would leave the section as simply stating that the page subject was the target of racial epithets in 2018, with zero further detail. This information is exceedingly vague and offers no insight into the episode, including the location, outcome, resolution or parties involved. This editor appears to be a fan or follower of the page subject, Sunny Hostin, and her employer, the talk show The View. KyleJoan thus appears to be including information and excluding other information that respectively furthers or hinders the page subject's own work and political causes. KyleJoan's preferred edits ambiguously elicit racial discord and generate confusion. KyleJoan has offered no justification for excluding the information besides pretextual references to WP:DUE , and has engaged in bullying and mocking in KyleJoan's responses on the page's talk page. I encourage any administrator to review the Sunny Hostin talk page on this topic in its entirety, not just the excerpts selected by KyleJoan. 96.241.151.80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.151.80 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Plunging reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Stale)
Page: Margot (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plunging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <--- — Plunging (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note added by GizzyCatBella🍁 15:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC))
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this slanderous material against Wikipedia ethical policy."
- 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
- 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
- 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
- 14:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
- 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy."
- 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME"
- 12:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". Unreliable sources nczas.com and radiomaryja.pl. MOS:DEADNAME."
- 12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979903446 by Subtropical-man (talk) WP:3RRBLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
- 12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979902254 by Subtropical-man (talk) misgendering removed in accordance with MOS:DEADNAME. Sources of ill repute: nczas.com, twitter, radiomaryja.pl removed. This is a living person, and this can not be on this page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Subtropical-man reverted more times than me. All of my reverts were made following WP:3RRBLP, removing libelous and violent material directed at a living breathing person. User:Subtropical-man added this material to the page, and has been slandering Margot on the talk place calling her a criminal and dehumanizing her by calling her worthless.--Plunging (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Attempts to discuss with Subtropical-man have been met with violent abuse not only towards Margot, but also towards me: [51].--Plunging (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Following Gbear605's advice directed at me and Subtropical I will stop and let other editors assess Subtropical's abuse toward Margot and editors.--Plunging (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Plunging - this is new user, account created practically only for vandalism: delete sections from article, delete sources, edit-warring. 99% edits of this user are destructive edits. Yes, I have undone his vandalism many times. This user does not know the rules of Wikipedia. This user gives absurd arguments like: removes 18 sources and whole section because they sources show the real name of the person. This user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Subtropical's "sources", [52], include twitter, Najwyższy Czas!, and Radio Maryja. These are not sources, they are sites of slander against LGBTIQ+.--Plunging (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added new many sources [53]. Again: stop manipulating. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- For context, this is part of a lengthy discussion about various aspects of referring to Margot (activist), a non-binary Polish activist who has been previously arrested. Subtropical-man prefers a certain page state because it abides by NPOV as they see it, while Plunging prefers a different page state because it abides by NPOV and BLP as they see it, as well as abiding by a certain code of ethics that they prefer. At this point, at least Subtropical-man seems to be blatantly in violation of WP:3RR and Plunging might be as well, although they were acting in the belief of WP:3RRBLP.
- There is discussion about this edit war at Talk:Margot_(activist)#Edit_war and discussion about the rest of the issues makes up the rest of the talk page. Gbear605 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Subtropical has clearly reverted more than anyone else and has described the page's BLP subject as 'worthless', so clearly has a problem with her and wants to highlight her deadname. Plunging was protecting the subject. Malick78 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Typical ordinary slanders and conjecture. You have no right to guess what I think. This breaks the rule of Wikipedia:NPA. Yes, I think, this person is not encyclopedical because this person has committed a crime (assault, vandalism and property damage), the press made a scandal because he/she is an LGBT person. As for the name Michał - it is very often used in sources. Simply. There are dozens of sources using the name of "Michał". Why should the encyclopedia hide this data? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that this user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but it is not allowed to delete article sections with 18 sources based on their opinion. A new user should respect experienced users, respect the rules of Wikipedia - account of Plunging created practically only for destructive edits. I think it makes sense to block this user indefinitely. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The real name is Małgorzata. Subtropical is pushing the deadname, which is violent, disrespectful, and dismissive towards Margot and all trans, queer, intersex, and non-binary people.--Plunging (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Real name? No, this is not real name. Her rela name is Michał by any (again: any) documents and law. She prefer name of Małgorzata, ok. I respect that, however, this does not mean that the real name should be kept secret, that they should be hidden in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, it is based on facts supported by sources. This is not LGBT magazine or blog. Also, Margot not offended by being referred to as Michał. You have practically no arguments that follow Wikipedia's policy. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The real name is Małgorzata. Subtropical is pushing the deadname, which is violent, disrespectful, and dismissive towards Margot and all trans, queer, intersex, and non-binary people.--Plunging (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Subtropical has clearly reverted more than anyone else and has described the page's BLP subject as 'worthless', so clearly has a problem with her and wants to highlight her deadname. Plunging was protecting the subject. Malick78 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Note to the admin. team members - Plunging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be an account of this Rainbow_freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already blocked user assessing by the similarity of edits and single-purpose account creation [54] <--> [55] (deadname argument) and more available in both edit histories. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stale and possibly even exempted under WP:3RRBLP – and the other user was indeffed. If anyone suspects this user is a sock, please file a SPI report with evidence. Salvio 08:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Partial block)
Page: Democratic Progressive Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- 10:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 15:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "There is no actual justification to include this material on this page; per talk page discussion preliminarily hiding the information anticipating any confirming information showing that 进 and 党 are used in the native communication of the society where this organization operates."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ disruptive, GI has been warned"
- 10:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles "/* Display of simplified characters in Template:Infobox Chinese at ROC articles */ link to opened discussion"
Comments:
I have great respect for most of their content creation work elsewhere, so I take no glee in filing this. User is experienced enough to know of WP:BRD and what constitutes edit warring. There is no "Revert" after the "Discuss" in WP:BRD, at least not without a wholly uninvolved 3rd opinion or RfC. Rehashing of the same arguments is a slam-dunk WP:DEADHORSE. A partial block from the page would be the best option CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not aware of the concept in question. The user has made fun of me and my writing style rather than responding to substantive points and arguments about a specific case where inclusion of foreign language material not used in Taiwan is egregiously not good for the Wikipedia article in question. The DPP never uses the characters this user wants to add to the page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary- it's an encyclopedia-- the form the above user wants is found on Wiktionary (I made the page myself). Please keep in mind that I was just attacked this week where thirty one images I uploaded related to Taiwan were spuriously tagged for speedy deletion and I have been attacked on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia with wild accusations about me from IPs. Taiwan is not using the characters 进 and 党 to discuss the DPP organization. Adversarial foreign language linguistic forms not used in the area in question or by the organization in question are not under the scope of a normal encyclopedia article, which is what I am advocating for on that talk page. Enforcing the letter of bad precedent on Wikipedia is bad for Wikipedia, whereas allowing Taiwan to tell us what the foreign language forms it uses is consistent with the practices of a normal encyclopedia. (Of course, the form including 进 and 党 is relevant to the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia's (language version) page for DPP, where readers also read in simplified characters. But here, on English Wikipedia, and concerning an apparently solely Taiwanese topic, it seems likely that the position I advocate for on the talk page will succeed- how could it not? How could an encyclopedia be pro-PRC POV biased? Keep in mind that traditional characters on PRC articles can be referenced to proven historical or artistic usages.) Traditional characters are still part of the linguistic system in the PRC [56], whereas most of them never were or are in Taiwan ROC Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
- Comment: The two clearly disagreed over whether this particular article should include both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese characters in its {{Infobox Chinese}}, leading to a mini edit-war by both editors and a clarification to a closed RfC at MOS:CHINESE. The close of that RfC was clarified as saying that {{Infobox Chinese}} should include both forms unless there is a consensus that a particular article is an exception.I then opened a talk page section at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party for the two editors to determine a consensus for whether that particular article should be one such exception. I do think that Geographyinitiative prematurely reverted to remove the Simplified Chinese characters again, roughly only 15 hours after their first comment on the talk page and before anyone else had responded. The RfC consensus of having both sets of characters should be preserved until the discussion on this particular article is mature. — MarkH21talk 17:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Partially blocked Salvio 08:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Usertowiki200300500 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: )
Page: Pupusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Usertowiki200300500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 01:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "I changed the previous origin."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Pupusa."
- 15:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Pupusa."
- 17:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pupusa."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Yet another in a series of users edit-warring to remove any notion from Pupusa that this foodstuff is eaten in Honduran cuisine as well as Salvadorean. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User:97.73.166.95 reported by User:Scorpions13256 (Result: Already blocked)
Page: United States Disciplinary Barracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.73.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted Vandalism"
- 03:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted Vandalism"
- 03:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted Vandalism"
- 23:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 04:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
They've already been warned. They're not going to stop. I tried explaining the reason behind one of my revisions in an edit summary. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Shenqijing reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked)
Page: Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shenqijing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "everything that I have done has a citation, it is factual and brings balance and context to the lead. Undid revision 980069410 by McSly (talk)"
- 11:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Vandalism from a user that has not contributed to this page please comment constructively on talkUndid revision 980066516 by Alexbrn (talk)"
- 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 980063172 by Alexbrn (talk)"
- 10:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 980059366 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
- 10:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 980057056 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
- 10:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Inserted suggested content from administration about The World health organisation and TCM. Inclusion of citation from another Nature Magazine article and reason from WHO for inclusion of traditional medicine, and added links to ICD and WHO"
- 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Revert back due to addition of information Undid revision 979758833 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
- 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Addition of inclusion of Trational Chinese Medicine by World health organisation. Same citation as Pseudoscience,"
- 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Dubto duplicated material, their is a complete description including duplicated links in the Critique sectionUndid revision 979744544 by Zefr (talk)"
- 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979740268 by Zefr (talk)"
- 14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Deletion of repeated information as there is a more concise example including repeated links and duplicated content in the critique section. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Traditional Chinese medicine."
- 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Traditional Chinese medicine."
- 15:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "/* September 2020 */ MOS"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is highly disruptive in article and on talk page, repeatedly reverting content from several experienced editors. Not listening or participating in constructive discussion and article improvement. See user's talk page and TCM talk page for resolution attempts. Zefr (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked Salvio 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Partially blocked)
Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LordRogalDorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]
Comments:
I requested for third opinion on the issue ([69]), but after a third editor Tgeorgescu intervened on the article's Talk page ([70]) I withdrew the request ([71]). I also raised the issue at the relevant noticeboard ([72]). The issue was discussed on the article's talk page and also on Tgeorgescu's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was never notified that Borsoka requested a 3rd opinion. And Tgeorgescu's intervention on the talk page ([73]) simply mentioned that we tend not to use secondary sources older than 50 or 100 years. This had little to do with our current discussion where a primary source is concerned, not a secondary source. The user Borsoka reverted my edits on the grounds that they are not compliant with Wikipedia's WP:SOURCE policy. After a discussion on the relevant talk page it became clear that my edits are compliant with Wikipedia's WP:SOURCE, WP:HISTRS and WP:PRIMARY policies. Eventually, user Tgeorgescu reverted my edit on the relevant page on citing a [former discussion of his, concerning the Gospel of John]. I asked him on his talk page what does it mean. He replied that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS were never highly regarded inside Wikipedia. I asked for clarificaiton on how the general set of rules for Wikipedia works, as I assumed every policy is valid at least in principle, and stated that according to WP:RULES "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow", so any policy should be normally followed and are by definition highly regarded among editors. He did not further reply, but replied to another user on the same page, making it clear that he has seen my message but choose not to reply. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days: we do not fill articles with lengthy quotes from arbitrarily choosen 16th-century historians' books without establishing the quotes' relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work. He have been unable to understand this basic rule. I also drew his attention to the possibilities of dispute resolution ([74]), but he ignored them and he is pushing his agenda. Borsoka (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Partially blocked Salvio 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
User:187.245.65.79 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page: Book of Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.245.65.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC) ""
- 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Changed "coerced consent" to "agreement" as coercion makes no sense in this context and implies that God is a bully who forced Pharaoh to stop being a slave owner."
- 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Changed "coerced consent" to "agreement". It makes no sense to refer to his agreement as coerced consent as it gives the false impression that he was being bullied. He was a slave owner, not a victim."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Exodus."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Already warned previously by GPinkerton. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected (well, semi-protected). Salvio 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Struthious Bandersnatch reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: )
Page: Rest in peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "/* History */ again, see talk page: this image needs to be completely removed because inserting it into this seven-paragraph article makes a WP:OR implied claim, but even more of a problem is the fact that you have used a WP:CIRCULAR citation to an article that gets its information from this Wikipedia article and links straight back to it"
- 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979990480 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) see talk page"
- 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979919454 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)—restoring this ignored both previous edit comments and the talk page discussion; linking this phrase to Judaism by choosing to illustrate the article with an image with a menorah in it, out of all possible funerary inscriptions, is WP:OR as I have expanded on in the talk page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rest in peace."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Struthious Bandersnatch objects to an image of a historic Jewish tombstone at the article rest in peace, which has been in the article since at least 2011. The reason given for removal is that the user saw a social media post which states modern-day Jews do not use the term "rest in peace". I reverted the initial removal, which apparently makes me a Jew-hater accordingly to the user's comments on the talkpage. The user's third revert was made after a warning on their user talk page, with the response that they were ""waiting for the WP:AN3 report". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note that Ivar the Boneful did not fill in "Previous version reverted to" because the diffs he presents aren't all reverts to a particular previous version; the first one isn't even a revert at all but is a deletion of a WP:CIRCULAR citation and the content added with it. I have now nominated the image this user is trying to forcefully restore to the article for deletion on Commons because it appears to be a copyright violation originally uploaded with a false source.
- I and most Jews wish that visceral hatred of Jews was necessary before someone could propagate the anti-Semitic canards I have pointed out you are using. But unfortunately it's very easy to do carelessly, in the same way it's easy to not bother to do any real research to support restoration of challenged content into an article or engage with the discussion of the material and Wikipedia policy on its talk page and instead just shout about edit wars. Spouting anti-Semitic tropes persistently without acknowledging you are doing so, or that there is any reason not to, very quickly becomes blatant and intentional anti-Semitism. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- "it appears to be a copyright violation originally uploaded with a false source". Here's the source: [76]. You're criticising me for "not doing any research", but you couldn't be bothered googling the image before nominating it for deletion? Do you have any sources disputing the image's provenance? Do you think this is some sort of antisemitic conspiracy to photoshop pictures of menorahs into old inscriptions? Frankly this is bizarre. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivar the Boneful and Struthious Bandersnatch: you are *both* edit warring. I was about to impose a partial block on the both of you, but then saw that the last revert is almost 22 hours old. As such, I'm not sure a block is necessary, you just have to follow WP:DR, if possible without commenting on each other's motives. Salvio 11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)