Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive390, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive391) (bot |
→User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Netoholic (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
::On closer look, you're right. I miscounted. My apologies. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
::On closer look, you're right. I miscounted. My apologies. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Sangdeboeuf]] reported by [[User:Netoholic]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Sangdeboeuf]] reported by [[User:Netoholic]] (Result: Page protected) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|toxic masculinity}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|toxic masculinity}} <br /> |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
*** A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
*** A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
**** How about an IP removing text from the lead with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&diff=900524863&oldid=900523461 no edit summary]? You admit to not editing the article, and have done nothing to contribute to it that I can see. And yet you are apparently watching it to try and catch me "out". Either participate yourself or just drop this. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
**** How about an IP removing text from the lead with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&diff=900524863&oldid=900523461 no edit summary]? You admit to not editing the article, and have done nothing to contribute to it that I can see. And yet you are apparently watching it to try and catch me "out". Either participate yourself or just drop this. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|p}} [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 04:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Different users reported by [[User:Devlet Geray]] (Result: Warned) == |
== Different users reported by [[User:Devlet Geray]] (Result: Warned) == |
Revision as of 04:08, 7 June 2019
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:Denisarona reported by User:51.77.152.216 (Result: semiprotected by K6ka)
Page: Long ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denisarona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Carizona reported by User:Ostealthy (Result: redirect protected)
Page: El Assico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carizona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [5]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Comments:
Page protected. Rather than block, I just protected the redirect. Feel free to try to gain consensus to change or remove it. El_C 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Devlet Geray reported by User:A man without a country (Result: No violation)
Page: Assassination of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]
Also on my talk page: [16]
Comments:
No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR — you only list two. El_C 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: )
Page: Mohammad-Reza Kolahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
This has nothing to do with 3RR (diffs above go back to May 23rd). This is concerning a dispute over the misrepresentation of a Dutch source to support the claim that "dutch sources reported (Mohammad-Reza Kolahi) as the person behind the IRP headquarter bombing". The discussion of whether this should be included is taking place here, and as of yet, there is no consensus to include this claim, but filer continues to add it to the article, and now reported me here even though there hasn't been a 3RR violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kazemita1 did almost as many reverts as Stefka over the two week span (first diff 23 May, last diff 4 June). The content Stefka is removing is newly introduced. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's exactly why Kazemita1 is condemning the double standard. Both are making "as many reverts as" the other while just one is blocked. --Mhhossein talk 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Myself, I had no idea that this was happening. But I'm gonna let another admin handle this report, because I feel I've been tested enough. El_C 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's exactly why Kazemita1 is condemning the double standard. Both are making "as many reverts as" the other while just one is blocked. --Mhhossein talk 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Ericthearcher reported by User:DrKay (Result: 24 hours, OP warned)
Page: George VI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ericthearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [18]
- [19]
- [20]
- [21], which reverts [22] (addition of category after removal of category)
- [23], which reverts [24]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]
Comments:
- Absolute and blatant lies in the edit summaries: [27][28]. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.
You should not be violating 3RR, either, DrKay. No matter how heated things get. I won't warn you about this again — and you're only getting a warning this time because the other user's explanation are not adding up. But I seriously considered blocking you, as well. El_C 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't violated 3RR. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- On closer look, you're right. I miscounted. My apologies. El_C 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Page protected)
Page: Toxic masculinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 26 May 2019
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:05, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 22:08, 26 May)
- 23:10, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 11:05, 5 June)
- 02:27, 6 June 2019, 02:28, 6 June 2019 (combined makes a full revert to 23:10, 5 June 2019)
- 04:01, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 02:28, 6 June)
- 06:24, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 04:58, 6 June 2019 ) (added after report)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, see comments.
Comments:
- I'm not involved with editing this article. I found this edit warring after the fact by seeing a request for page protection submitted by Sangdeboeuf. Also note that the net effect of Sangdeboeuf's edits today is to revert the article to an 11 May version, which itself was in relation to a spat of edit warring that required page protection. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Netoholic has been making a serious nuisance of himself on numerous gender-related articles and projects lately. I guess this is some kind of retaliation for challenging him at Talk: Masculism (multiple threads there) and other related pages. He is also mistaken about the reason for page protection. Look at the edits I reverted here – IPs and non-confirmed users giving faulty or no edit summaries for clearly disruptive edits. Suggest a speedy close to this and a WP:TROUT to the nominator. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a 5th revert to the list above, made after this filing. I believe this editor is flaunting and playing games. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RRNO: undoing clear vandalism does not count toward the total. The one playing games is you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- How about an IP removing text from the lead with no edit summary? You admit to not editing the article, and have done nothing to contribute to it that I can see. And yet you are apparently watching it to try and catch me "out". Either participate yourself or just drop this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RRNO: undoing clear vandalism does not count toward the total. The one playing games is you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Page protected ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Different users reported by User:Devlet Geray (Result: Warned)
Page: Assassination of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the users' reverts:
Comments:
A piece of information has been deleted many times by different users. Seems strange. Can somebody protect this page? --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Warned. It's not strange — it's promotional and there seems to be consensus for it being removed. Participants should not keep restoring it. El_C 19:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Bje1128 reported by User:ApLundell (Result: page protected/warned)
Page: Fenn treasure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bje1128 (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:
Diffs of the users reverts after commenting on this discussion:
(Of course, after I added this section header, the date/time on his comment was changed. It was originally 17:53. ) ApLundell (talk)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]
- He replied on my talk page here insisting that his edits are ok because he has first hand facts. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments:
Here's the page as it stood yesterday. [53]
Since then a single-purpose account has shown up to change the article and aggressively defend it to match his own personal research on the subject. With edit summaries like "My sources are reliable. My evidence is firsthand, and I am accountable for the evidence"
Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to reply. I don't have a "single-purpose account" (wow), I was an inactive user who lost the keys to his old account and chose to create a new account to upload crucial photo evidence. I have also recently edited the Presidential Election of 1824 and certain antebellum House elections, but not while logged in, so I have done so marked by IP address. My name is Brian Erskine and I can be contacted at (kattigara at gmail). I am not edit warring. The Fenn quest is solved, and I have independent visual proof. I am accountable for my evidence, which is detailed here.[1] There is no treasure in the woods. The persistent idea that there is, is tantamount to a hoax. I seek to publish the proven solution - tangible facts, rather than perpetuating years of public deception, is what Wikipedia is for.
Thank you. Bje1128 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Last good revision appears to be 898403395. Is there also a quick way to scrub the spammed website? It appears to be in any edits he's made (including on other user's talk pages). Orville1974 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Orville1974. The website is not spam. The source material for the proof is the epilogue illustration in Fenn's book, which matches the photo. I don't have the right to publish that illustration on Wikipedia. I am not aiming to start or win an edit war and might not at this time be able to publish the facts on Wikipedia, but the log of edit comments is of value. No harm at my end, since for me, this isn't personal or a crusade, I'm just the person who happened to find the independent visual proof of solution to the quest (details of which are elsewhere). Thanks! Bje1128 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Warned —
Page protected. That's a lot of reverting, but I chose to go with full protection as these two (Lummifilm and (Bje1128) may be too new to know how strict we get with edit warring and 3RR. Now that they've been properly warned, they (and everyone else) get a week of trying to sort it out on the article talk page. Good luck. El_C 19:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)