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 than 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 the 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. |
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 User:Netoholic reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)
- 2 User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Closed)
- 3 User:144.138.81.21 reported by User:Vivvt (Result: )
- 4 User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:PaganPanzer (Result: No violation)
- 5 User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked for 1 week)
- 6 User:Soarwakes reported by User:My Lord (Result: No violation)
- 7 User:Joshi punekar reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)
- 8 User:86.164.35.39 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 31 hours )
- 9 User:DVIssac reported by User:Joythommi13 (Result: No violation)
- 10 User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warning)
- 11 User:142.21.15.116 reported by User:A lad insane (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 12 User:70.112.229.80 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: block, semiprotection)
- 13 User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )
- 14 User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: one week)
User:Netoholic reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Ben Swann ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "rmv WP:SYNTH per WP:BLPREMOVE: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources""
- 22:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "resolve edit conflict, and again WP:BLPREMOVE several examples of WP:SYNTH that do not mention Swann, CBS, etc."
- Consecutive edits made from 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- 20:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "rmv recently added dog-whistle word to lead per WP:BLP"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 12:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- 12:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "prior edit wasn't complete and accurate per ajc.com source"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Ben Swann */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
- 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
- 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
- 21:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
- 22:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
- Comments:
Last diff is a revert of the alt-right language put back in by User:Kuru here after it was removed without discussion by an anon IP. They again reverted it out in one of the consecutive diffs after I restored the well-sourced language, while the first two are clear-cut wholesale reversions after their edits were objected to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The 12:10 edit was just an edit, not a revert. There was also an edit conflict that I mentioned in the 22:06 edit summary - I was working on the 22:02 edit on the pizzagate section and saved, not seeing an intervening mass-revert by NorthBySouthBaranof. Likewise, these are WP:BLPREMOVE-based edits which are pretty obvious to an outside observer as I am removing SYNTH sources which fail to mention the subject of the article itself (Ben Swann). These sources seem to have been included to build up some form of "refutation" of Swann's reports, but don't mention him specifically and in some cases pre-date his. Inclusion of these sources is an exceptionally clear BLP violation, so I would encourage admins to enforce the removal of them per WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Netoholic @ 22:3622:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The 3RR exemption applies to unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and none of the material in question is unsourced or poorly sourced. Your belief of what is "synthesis" is debatable, and you have refused to discuss it on the talk page. Moreover, your removal of the well-sourced words "debunked" or "false" from the description of malicious bullshit like Pizzagate is a BLP violation the other way - multiple named living people were falsely accused of serious crimes and we are required to be clear that Pizzagate is false. Your edits suggest that it could be true, which is literally insane. The "alt-right" description is in multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- "poorly-sourced material" includes material which doesn't even mention the subject of the article. I'm not going to debate specific content concerns related to labels here. The problem is the SYNTH created by using irrelevant sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is not SYNTH to use a source which says something is false to support the statement that something is false. SYNTH involves creating novel conclusions not found in reliable sources. The conclusion that Pizzagate is false is found in a million reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which is why we link to the conspiracy theories, not re-litigate them in every other article. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The word "false" or "debunked" is not "relitigating" anything, it is a simple and well-sourced statement of mainstream reality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which is why we link to the conspiracy theories, not re-litigate them in every other article. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is not SYNTH to use a source which says something is false to support the statement that something is false. SYNTH involves creating novel conclusions not found in reliable sources. The conclusion that Pizzagate is false is found in a million reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- "poorly-sourced material" includes material which doesn't even mention the subject of the article. I'm not going to debate specific content concerns related to labels here. The problem is the SYNTH created by using irrelevant sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Before the admin buttons come out here, @Netoholic:, what is your rationale for removing sourced relevant material? It clearly isn't SYNTH for an article to point out that a BLP subject's claims are refuted in multiple reliable sources. Otherwise we run the risk of suggesting that such claims are reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is SYNTH because those sources do not mention Swann or his "claims" (if such exist) at all. He is fundamentally a reporter that covers controversial topics, not necessarily that he makes "claims" about those topics. If he does, then surely there are sources which mention him, his claims, and offer refutation of them all in one source. To string together unrelated sources to draw any conclusion is the heart of WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a proper reading of SYNTH. There is no requirement in policy that every source in a biographical article has to mention the article subject. We can use sources of general applicability anywhere. What SYNTH prohibits is novel interpretations of sources. It is not a novel interpretation of a source to say that 9/11 was not an inside job and that Pizzagate is manufactured troll bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how SYNTH works. Obviously, for major figures (i.e. Trump), when they say something false a reliable source will automatically come along to point it out. But for far less important figures that would suggest that for material to be included in Wikipedia, a reliable source would need to specifically debunk his false claims, even when they're obviously false. But there are so many thousands of people in the media, social media and the Internet peddling false information that it would clearly be impossible to find reliable sources for every single one. No, if we have a BLP who is known for doing this, all we need to do is provide reliable sourcing to point out that many of his claims are false. We need nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- "A makes a news report about widgets. B, C, and D say widgets are fake news." (But do not mention A specifically) - This is pretty clearly SYNTH which is designed to disparage A and imply something about A's reporting which no source is independently saying. If there is criticism or doubt about A's news reports, then find sources that give a review of A's work. You'll know them when you see them because they'll actually mention A. (Heck, did you even notice that I added a source like that during the time I was removing this SYNTH?) What the WP:TRUTH is doesn't matter, and it sounds like you are more trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by "getting the word out" about these conspiracy theories. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about Ben Swann (who incidentally I'd never heard of before tonight - I'm not American). I'm pointing out that you are removing sourced information that is relevant to the article and you aren't giving a good reason for doing so. Pointing out that someone has published claims that are false is not a BLP violation if their claims are refuted by reliable sources. Now, I strongly suggest that you seld-revert your fourth revert (as NBSB has done), and then both of you head off to the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: "if their claims are refuted by reliable sources" IS THE ISSUE at hand. I only removed sources which had no mention of Swann. If there is no mention of Swann in a source, there can be no refutation of his "claims" either within it. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on editors to use sources that mention the subject, or that are used in a way which is less WP:SYNTH. Also, as I said, the 12:10 edit was clearly not a revert, it was a re-write of a small section. So no 4th revert is present. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- You aren't seeming to understand the concept that we don't need a source to mention Swann in order to cite that a claim is false. Normally I would protect the article but in this case, since you're not going to self-revert, I am not going to do this as it may be seen as rewarding edit-warring. I am going to post at WP:ANI for further admin eyes. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: - But you DO need a source which describes Swann's claims. In most cases, we have only sources that say he reported on some subject. That's all. Here is a really good example of one item. We have a source that only says he hosted a segment on the topic of “5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta Emails.”. That's it. The source I removed made no mention of Swann or his segment. I'm not even convinced that second unrelated source was even about the same aspect of the news story. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- You aren't seeming to understand the concept that we don't need a source to mention Swann in order to cite that a claim is false. Normally I would protect the article but in this case, since you're not going to self-revert, I am not going to do this as it may be seen as rewarding edit-warring. I am going to post at WP:ANI for further admin eyes. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: "if their claims are refuted by reliable sources" IS THE ISSUE at hand. I only removed sources which had no mention of Swann. If there is no mention of Swann in a source, there can be no refutation of his "claims" either within it. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on editors to use sources that mention the subject, or that are used in a way which is less WP:SYNTH. Also, as I said, the 12:10 edit was clearly not a revert, it was a re-write of a small section. So no 4th revert is present. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about Ben Swann (who incidentally I'd never heard of before tonight - I'm not American). I'm pointing out that you are removing sourced information that is relevant to the article and you aren't giving a good reason for doing so. Pointing out that someone has published claims that are false is not a BLP violation if their claims are refuted by reliable sources. Now, I strongly suggest that you seld-revert your fourth revert (as NBSB has done), and then both of you head off to the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- "A makes a news report about widgets. B, C, and D say widgets are fake news." (But do not mention A specifically) - This is pretty clearly SYNTH which is designed to disparage A and imply something about A's reporting which no source is independently saying. If there is criticism or doubt about A's news reports, then find sources that give a review of A's work. You'll know them when you see them because they'll actually mention A. (Heck, did you even notice that I added a source like that during the time I was removing this SYNTH?) What the WP:TRUTH is doesn't matter, and it sounds like you are more trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by "getting the word out" about these conspiracy theories. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is SYNTH because those sources do not mention Swann or his "claims" (if such exist) at all. He is fundamentally a reporter that covers controversial topics, not necessarily that he makes "claims" about those topics. If he does, then surely there are sources which mention him, his claims, and offer refutation of them all in one source. To string together unrelated sources to draw any conclusion is the heart of WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- peanut gallery comment If Jeff Rense says tomorrow that "vaccines cause autism" we don't have to wait until someone specifically refutes Jeff Rense to note that this is incorrect. @Netoholic: you were, at a minimum, edit-war-adjacent at The Great Replacement really recently. Maybe you should just follow WP:BRD in relation to conspiracy theory articles from here on out. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS doesn't mean WP:WRITEWRONGTHINGSNblund talk 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- It specifically and clearly intentionally removed, among other things, the word "alt-right" from the lede, which is a revert of the immediate prior edit by User:Kuru, which had just restored it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User failed to self-revert, as was suggested. I don't see how the BLP exemption (due to SYNTH) applies in this case — as it all seems to fall within the scope of mainstream sources. Also, reverting the closing admin in the report below (authored by the user) is disconcerting. El_C 00:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- This block was heavy-handed. I dispute the idea that this edit was any kind of revert. It was a rewrite of a small section. Apparently the grounds for it being called a "revert" was based on the incidental, unintentional, removal of a single term "alt-right" which, if it had been explained clearly to me and if given the opportunty, I would have self-reverted to put back that term. Despite repeated asking, El_C refused to unblock me for the duration, so I was not given the chance to show good faith to rectify this perceived slight. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Closed)
Page: Ben Swann ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- Presence of the term "alt-right" in lead as of 11:07, 8 April 2019
- Presence of various sources in the "Controversial views and claims" section as of 14:33, 8 April 2019
- Presence of the term "false" related to Pizzagate added by NorthBySouthBaranof at 22:05, 8 April 2019
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:33, 8 April 2019 - restores "alt-right" term to lead found in 11:07, 8 April 2019 version (moved slightly)
- 21:47, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 14:33 version
- 22:07, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 22:05 version
- 22:43, 8 April 2019 - reverts to restore "false" term found in his 22:05, 8 April 2019 edit
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] given at 22:17 before 4th revert
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ben Swann#Synthesis
Comments:
- That Pizzagate is false is indisputable. Removing that word, or the prior "debunked" wording, as Netoholic has repeatedly done, suggests that it could be true that named living people are guilty of serious crimes. It is, factually, not true. That Netoholic wants to suggest to our readers that it could be true suggests they may not be able to edit articles on this subject in a policy-compliant manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've self-reverted because apparently Netoholic desperately wants everyone to know how much they believe Pizzagate is true; why else would they defend such utter freaking crazy libelous nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- You've got a couple of potential policy violations in that comment that you should consider striking when you've calmed down. 199.247.46.74 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Closed. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Black Kite has posted at ANI to request more admin opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, would have gone with No action, as the user has self-reverted. El_C 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
User:144.138.81.21 reported by User:Vivvt (Result: )
- Page
- Rocketry: The Nambi Effect ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 144.138.81.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "DO YOUR RESEARCH! ANANT MAHADEVAN IS NOT PART OF THE MOVIE ANYMORE!"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rocketry: The Nambi Effect. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Co-direction credit */ new section"
- Comments:
IP is not discussing anything on talk page even when the discussion is started and keep reverting to their version, in spite of sources. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The dispute is on whether to include the name of Anant Mahadevan as director. What about this article from India Today (21 January) which claims that Anant has dropped out as director of the film? The sources currently in the article that mention Anant as director, which include the trailer, are mostly from 2018 or earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The source that you mentioned has this particular line. Later, the Vikram Vedha actor revealed that he will be directing the film along with Anant Mahadevan. Article and/or source does not mention that Mahadevan's part will be shot again by Madhavan. So it has to be mentioned that they have co-directed the film. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please re-read the India Today article. Though their chronology is confusing, the opening sentence says that Anant Mahadevan has dropped out of the project. Do you have a more recent source that says anything different? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The source that you mentioned has this particular line. Later, the Vikram Vedha actor revealed that he will be directing the film along with Anant Mahadevan. Article and/or source does not mention that Mahadevan's part will be shot again by Madhavan. So it has to be mentioned that they have co-directed the film. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:PaganPanzer (Result: No violation)
Page: MS-13 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [2]
Diffs of the user's reverts: [3] [4]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
[5]
Comments:
There are multiple users raising issues with the neutrality of the article on the talk page [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
A number of users have tried to improve the neutrality of the article by removing biased text or changing the language to be more neutral [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
All of these edits were immediately reverted by the user in question without any attempt to resolve the issues in the talk page. I believe the political text in the article is very clearly not neutral and is bordering on pushing an agenda and should not be allowed to remain in its current state.
- Comment from uninvolved editor - 3 minutes after filing this report, and despite clearly understanding what edit warring is, PaganPanzer made their 3rd removal of the disputed content from the page in less than 9 hours. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- PaganPanzer, can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring while your own complaint is already open? EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reverting contentious and biased material is exempt from edit-warring policy. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- PaganPanzer, can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring while your own complaint is already open? EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No violation by Snooganssnoogans. But PaganPanzer, watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The user in question is very clearly holding the page hostage in a non-neutral state and is refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. If he is not violating an edit-warring policy then fine, but then where should I report him for this behaviour? His behaviour is seriously damaging to the neutrality of Wikipedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- PaganPanzer, your best bet might be to bring your concerns to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The user in question is very clearly holding the page hostage in a non-neutral state and is refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. If he is not violating an edit-warring policy then fine, but then where should I report him for this behaviour? His behaviour is seriously damaging to the neutrality of Wikipedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: @EdJohnston: PaganPanzer continues to revert repeatedly at the article, well over the bright line of 3RR, despite discussion still continuing at the talk page. Request that you look at this report again and consider WP:BOOMERANG. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked for 1 week)
- Page
- Greeks in Albania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) to 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891630576 by 125.236.128.202 (talk)"
- 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891028124 by Dr.K. (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
As soon as he got unblocked for edit-warring, he started exactly the same disruption. Please see report 4 days ago when he got blocked for 72 hours for reverting 7 times. Dr. K. 15:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Soarwakes reported by User:My Lord (Result: No violation)
Page: Cow vigilante violence in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soarwakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:41, 25 February 2019 Undid revision 884564684 by My Lord (talk) undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
- 05:00, 2 April 2019 Undid revision 890324188 by Abhi88iisc (talk) Deletion is not done by consensus undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
- 14:02, 4 April 2019 Undid revision 890901349 by My Lord (talk) consensus not required to create page undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
- 04:20, 9 April 2019 To delete an article consensus is required. Please refrain undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Comments:
As per discussion at User talk:Soarwakes#Spinning out articles, this user is clearly not understanding that there is a established consensus at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014/Archive 1#The main problem with this article is not the title, that we should not create a POV fork on Cow vigilante violence in India, because that subject is same as Cow protection movement. This editor continues to edit war against the established consensus claiming that you need no consensus to create an article and that we can't redirect a POV fork without initiating an AfD. Admin should either block this user for engaging in a lame edit war by reverting 4 times by disregarding the established consensus or restore the redirect and fully protect the redirect in order to avoid this WP:POVFORK. ML talk 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deleting article without consensus is wrong. I have posted it in the talk page. Instead of using WP:AFD, you have redirected the article, feel free to take the article there. No need of consensus to create an article, you can use various allowed methods to delete it. It is you who is doing edit warring. Soarwakes (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No violation. Please take it to WP:RM if you want to move the title elsewhere. El_C 08:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Are you saying that 4 reverts were made in more than 24 hours that's why they don't count as violation? Per WP:EW this user has engaged in gross misconduct. I also don't think your message solves any problem. RM is not issue here but creation of a POVFORK against established consensus. This user is engaging in WP:IDHT and not gaining a new consensus to overturn the existing consensus. ML talk 12:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the timeline falls outside the scope of 3RR. I may have, indeed, misunderstood the rest, for which I apologize. El_C 13:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Joshi punekar reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Goud Saraswat Brahmin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Joshi punekar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Diet and culture */All book reference only mentions saraswat,but this is particularly for Goud saraswat Brahmins.If you find that sentence in any book reply me in the talk page ."
- 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Diet and culture */Hope I have given proper citation for justification.Alway variety matters .I have given justification in talk page"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Exclusive page is there for cuisine “Saraswat cuisine “ so this information will be redundant.All content mentioned here is there in that page.Feel free to message me in case of any clash."
- 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Formatting the sentence"
- 19:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Same citations which I found in saraswat brahmin page.
1.Firstly all citations should be neutral to biased. 2.News paper cannot be a neutral source. 3.For this page food section has been created separately so if you want to contribute so please go to that page. Simply don’t vandalise instead drag this to Talk page."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Goud Saraswat Brahmin. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Etho-POV pushing re. Brahmins on multpile pages. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note:See my edits and concerns before talking decision.Just for someone they are going away from wiki policy of neutrality. Joshi punekar (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. It appears that Joshi punekar wants to remove all mention of fish being part of the diet of the Goud Saraswat Brahmins. At first glance, the mentions of fish in their diet are sourced. He is implying that the people reinserting fish to the article are vandals. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:86.164.35.39 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 31 hours )
- Page
- Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 86.164.35.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891637561 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC) to 07:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 06:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "This Needs To Stay This Way"
- 07:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 07:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 07:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 07:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user keeps restoring unsourced content to this page and is refusing to stop as requested. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Boing! said Zebedee Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:DVIssac reported by User:Joythommi13 (Result: No violation)
Page: Ezharappallikal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DVIssac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Comments:
The user page DVIssac was created 2 weeks back and edit warring with me on subject page.Since i havent explored wiki much i cant talk with this user since wiki says the page doesnt exist.Also a talk page on said page doesnt exist currently.Excuse me if i missed anything before reporting this.This guy claims the original palyoor church with arthat church which have no historical background,but a bogus claim started by the same church members in 21st century.I have given historical proofs on wiki page St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Palayoor regarding the claim of palyoor as the one and the only actual palyoor church. Joythommi13 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No violation. Please just take your concerns about the content to the article talk page—communicate with the user directly on their user talk page. If an article doesn't exist, you can create, it—just be careful when you do. El_C 21:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warning)
- Page
- Mahmoud Reza Khavari ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Masterofthename (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891860336 by Shemtovca (talk) you are intentionally trying to remove sourced information that you think might be bad for Mr. Mizrahi. The information you remove is not a violation of WP guidelines and is sourced from published articles in respectable journals. Please refrain."
- 03:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891608989 by Shemtovca (talk) It is related to Khashayar Khavari, when in the news articles it says Khavari obtained the money from his father, you have been trying to whitewash this case for over a year now. please stop."
- 23:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891116905 by Shemtovca (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahmoud_Reza_Khavari. (TW)"
- 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891621739 by Masterofthename (talk) don't hide the history"
- 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahmoud_Reza_Khavari. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Khashayar Khavari */"
- Comments:
The user is engaging in Edit Warring. Has been warned and blocked for edit warring in 2016. The user is also making unsubstantiated Personal attacks WP:PA. I ignored the initial mentions, but you keep repeating it. Shemtovca (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The user ShemtovCA is an avid supporter of the state of Israel and wants to remove published information linking Iranian Canadian banker to a hard core supporter of state of Israel in Canada, Sam Mizrahi. All the material that he keeps on removing is published in Canadian newspapers, the connection is made by the respected news sources but this user insists that the connection is defamation. The user ShemtovCa should be banned for this activist behavior. Masterofthename (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here we go again, another personal attack on me personally. What is my support for state of Israel has anything todo with this? Shemtovca (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- You are actively trying to censor information that is bad for Israel. Not fooling anyone here.Masterofthename (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned. Masterofthename, that is not an acceptable response. Shemtovca brought their concerns to the article talk page, and you are now obliged to respond to these, certainly before reverting again. Which you have so far failed to do on the basis of what? Insinuations and innuendo? That does not fly here. El_C 21:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
his actions on removing a big chunk of the page which came from sourced material constituted a clear example WP:VD, but I guess this issue is too important so normal rules don't apply anymore. Everything has become a joke, even the Wikipedia. Masterofthename (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:142.21.15.116 reported by User:A lad insane (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Anusha Samaranayake ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 142.21.15.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891870058 by A lad insane (talk) I can provide the evidence of all the letters provided by SLC and ICC as evidence"
- 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891869744 by Lugnuts (talk)"
- 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891869552 by A lad insane (talk)"
- 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891869457 by Lugnuts (talk)"
- 17:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891869094 by Lugnuts (talk)"
- 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891837690 by Lugnuts (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Anusha Samaranayake. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
At 6RR today, adding unsourced POV not to mention BLP vios. Resolutions have been attempted via edit summary. Sources, while promised, have not been provided. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ GB fan 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:70.112.229.80 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: block, semiprotection)
Page: Adam Hughes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.112.229.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Since this project page says that "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.", I'm including all of the accused's reverts:
- Content blanking by 70.112.229.80
- Revert by one editor, LightandDark2000
- First revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he refers to the other editor's revert as "vandalism".
- Revert by a second editor, Ohnoitsjamie
- Second revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he refers to the other editor's revert as "vandalism".
- Second revert by Ohnoitsjamie, in which he cautions The Accused against reverting multiple editors and misleading edit summaries with a link to WP:VANDALISM, and advises him to use the talk page
- Third revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he tells Ohnoitsjamie that he should go to the talk page.
- Revert by a third editor, Nightscream (myself), in which I also added publication info to a bare url cite that had previously added, and even conceeded, in the spirit of collaboration, that part of his content removal was reasonable.
- Fourth revert by 70.112.229.80 in which he remarked on an error he perceived on my part by saying, "Please learn how to read."
- An unrelated revert by me to another part of the article
- Revert by 67.100.0.114. It should be noted that this 67.100.0.114 is traced to Dallas, Texas, while 70.112.229.80 is traced to Austin, Texas. If you have the ability to determine if these were both the same user, I'd suggest that you do so. Otherwise, make of it what you will.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Lengthy attempts have been made to discuss the accused's concerns, first on my talk page, and then on the article talk page.
- He persistently and falsely accused me of "plagiarizing" a paragraph I wrote in the article that was actually properly paraphrased and attributed--first on my talk page, where I supplied him with several scholarly/academic sources showing that the definition of plagiarism did not describe my work, and then continuing to do so on the article talk page -- See the entire first subsection of the "Request to block Nightscream from editing this page" section), prompting another editor, Argento Surfer, from using a plagiarism detection tool that showed the paragraph in question was not plagaized.
- 70.112.229.80 attempts unsuccessfully to have me blocked, only to have multiple editors caution him on Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTADVERT, WP:PROSOURCE, etc.
- He complained about my removal of an uncited passage he added to the article, claiming that a source cited earlier in the article supported it, accusing me of being in league the article subject and saying, "Nightscream is either incompetent or willfully ignorant. I'm not throwing insults here -- I am genuinely questioning his ability to read, comprehend, and process text", requiring two other editors (Argento Surfer and Emperor) to caution him not to make unsubstantiated accusations like this, and explaining to him that others have no way of knowing if a cite in one part of an article also applies to a latter passage, and that he has to add the cite to the second passage too.
- When I made a honest mistake about a previous statement he made, he knee-jerk accused me of "lying". When I acknowledged my error and apologized for it, he did not acknowledge this, or his earlier overreaction.
- After one perfectly politely message by me in which I attempted to discuss my understanding of policies and guidelines pertaining to sourcing, and explain why I had removed additions he made to the article, he responded by saying, "This is the last time that I respond to anything that you write. You are a joke and have wasted enough of my time."
Comments:
- I state this without malice -- I genuinely feel that many people who are longtime editors/writers aren't aware that they are either poor writers (eg lack of talent or skill) or write too much. In Nightscream's case, both apply. Moreover, as time passes, Wikipedia has fewer and fewer contributing voices, due to real-world time constraints, loss of interest, or being driven away by longtime editors/writers who've become chummy with each other. This phenomenon has been documented by The New York Times and author Andrew Lih.
- I stand by my edits, which I feel are superior in both content and grammar.
70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week.
Page protected for 6 months. You've conducted yourself in a subpar manner and there are consequences for that. El_C 21:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )
Page: Max Blumenthal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
(The article is subject to 1RR limitation)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary for ARBCOM-protected articles subjected to 1RR (plus the user was well aware, see below)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments:
Apart from repeatedly edit warring at an ARBCOM protected article, TheTimesAreAChanging makes it very clear they are actively gaming the system. After violating 1RR, the user did self-revert saying Yeah, I thought 24 hours had passed - and then simply waited another hour for the 24h to pass before again starting to edit war [24]. This starts to add up to quite a file. Violating 1RR, repeatedly edit warring against discretionary sanctions, and actively gaming the system, showing a complete lack of understand of what 1RR means. My recommendation would be a three month topic ban from all articles subjected WP:A/I/PIA. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- TheTimesAreAChanging made a brusk but articulate explanation for the edits. The crux of this situation is that the WP:ONUS is on the those who want to push inclusion of an article that doesn't even mention Max Blumenthal. TheTimesAreAChanging's edits functioned to protect the page against frivolous POV-pushing material, not only not violating the ARBCOM in any meaningful way, but very much upholding its spirit. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: one week)
Page: Bobby Beausoleil ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnpie1789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [25]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#User:Mnpie1789, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive387#User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours), User talk:Mnpie1789
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation"
Comments:
The edit warring resumed after the block expired, with no discernable difference in the behavior or the type of edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 00:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)