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:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page-blocked from the article for two weeks)
Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Efbrazil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ In another attempt at consensus, I made it clear that american companies are the ones who are importing goods. If you don't like the source at all then we need to delete this information entirely, but we should not be mischaracterizing the source. The source makes it perfectly clear that importers pay the tax."
- 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088695359 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a simple fact that is well sourced to CNN. Are you disagreeing with facts? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. If you have a disagreement with the facts, please state what they are."
- 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Yes, it was widely criticized as a failure by liberal and business-oriented interests at the time. I added the fact that Biden maintained the tariffs along with a source to that effect."
- 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ The article is very clear that it is not all american companies that pay, it is american importers of chinese goods. Simply saying "american companies" without clarifying that it is companies doing imports is obfuscation and bias. I added the quote from the article to make the context clear. If you want different wording, please include the key piece of information that it is importers paying, not all companies."
- 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Removing value judgments of Trump Tariffs, better to just stick to facts here."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Donald Trump */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user was warned about restoring edits that have been undone and that the article is under a clear 1rr restriction but still continued to restore their preferred content and revert after being given a clear warning and notification of the articles restrictions. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the edits it's clear I was on solid ground and was seeking consensus, not edit warring. I've taken the discussion to the talk page here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Removing_bias_regarding_trade_tariffs_from_the_article Efbrazil (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Except you ignored a clear and explicit warning about 1rr on the page itself, multiple times and my warning to you. Just because you believe you are right does not mean you can edit war. And I'm not the only one you've edit warred with. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, there's no 1RR restriction on that page, where it was replaced with the 24-hour-BRD rule. The diffs show a violation of that page restriction, but editors will need to determine whether this is the proper venue to review this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that edit warring is when you revert edits or reimpose edits rather than seeking consensus. Each of my edits were attempting to address prior concerns with content.
- Anyhow, I'm not here to make an argument about the letter of the law, and it's kind of water under the bridge as this is now taking place on the talk page. In the spirit of the law, I'd argue Praxidicae is the one that erred by reverting this edit without reason:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1088695359 Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Note Page blocked from the article for two weeks. Efbrazil has quite egregiously violated the 24-hour restriction, making 3 reverts inside 24 hours. Efbrazil, your understanding of what edit warring is, is flawed. No, seeking consensus on talk does not mean you are allowed to keep reverting the article. Moreover, you're nowhere near getting consensus on talk. It would be better to read our edit warring policy than to handwave at "the spirit of the law" (a spirit which you have, in my opinion, violated just as well as the letter of the law, by going right up against the 3RR rule on this controversial article). Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [1] and [2] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).
- Thanks Bishonen. In detail:
- The first "revert" [3] is not a revert. If you look at the edit, I added a reference to back up the statement. I was responding to a previous revert that said my edit didn't correspond to the source. The article used virtually the exact same wording I did, so I updated the reference to make that clear. I don't think it's a revert if you are replying to a complaint that an edit was unsourced, so you put the edit back in with the sourcing. Do you agree?
- The second revert [4] was a revert, and was arguably a mistake, but it wasn't baseless. The reason I did the revert is that Praxidicae had deleted my edit without giving any reason at all. I don't believe reversion without any stated reasoning is valid, so I reverted with a comment where I respectfully and asked them to state their reasoning for deleting my edit. I don't think that's out of line, but it's fair to say I should have taken a different path. Still, it's also clear to me that Praxidicae provoked the situation by backing out my edit without any basis.
- I hope you'll reconsider the ban. Arguably both myself and Praxidicae could have handled ourselves better, but banning just me seems to be way over the line for this situation. Efbrazil (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bishonen, your thoughts on this? Efbrazil (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- [5] is IMO a revert. It reverts to your own phrasing here. I think I'm done explaining this now, Efbrazil. Also, I think a two-week partial block from one article is a mild sanction; you still have the rest of Wikipedia to edit. Please take it to WP:ANI for community attention if you want to complain further of my block. Bishonen | tålk 04:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, your thoughts on this? Efbrazil (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [1] and [2] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).
- Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
User:CROIX reported by User:Peter Ormond (Result: )
Page: Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CROIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7][8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] (my talk page)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This user doesn't understand WP:BURDEN, and engages in WP:OR. I'm tired of explaining him the issue on my talk page, but he still doesn't understand. Also, he creates ridiculous redirects: GGAB, PMAB, FAWST .... Peter Ormond 💬 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- We didn’t just resolve this? Also, the majority of those edits you mentioned were either me making the article look cleaner, considering you spammed citiation needed on every single language, even though all those languages had the same source. And one of those edits was accidental, and I immediately reverted it. And, some of those edits were made before we even spoke. CROIX (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is factually correct, they are languages recognized by the government. Once again, the Belize article and the Jamaica article do the exact same thing. CROIX (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- And, I do not recall you saying that I should not use government sources, may I have a link to when you said that? CROIX (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I told you so many times that your sources don't explicilty support the content [10] [11] [12], and now you don't "recall" it. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- That’s not what I said, what I said is that you never explicitly said I should not use government sources. Which are clearly more accurate. CROIX (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- When did I say to you to not use "government sources"? Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- On your talk page. CROIX (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Diff, please? Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- [13] CROIX (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- It can be clearly seen that I commented on those particular sources that didn't support the content. I didn't say to not use government sources at all. You misquote, misrepresent, and are wasting everybody's time by WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you said those sources were not reliable. CROIX (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stop wasting my time. If you don't understand the English language I can't help. If this isn't the case, read the earlier reply carefully and understand what is being said to you. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you said those sources were not reliable. CROIX (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- It can be clearly seen that I commented on those particular sources that didn't support the content. I didn't say to not use government sources at all. You misquote, misrepresent, and are wasting everybody's time by WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- [13] CROIX (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Diff, please? Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- On your talk page. CROIX (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- When did I say to you to not use "government sources"? Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That’s not what I said, what I said is that you never explicitly said I should not use government sources. Which are clearly more accurate. CROIX (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I told you so many times that your sources don't explicilty support the content [10] [11] [12], and now you don't "recall" it. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Peter Ormond What do my redirects have to do with edit warring? I thought this was the place to report edit warring, not report that someone made some redirects. CROIX (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did report edit warring, which is the main issue. Also, I think other issues need to be highlightled too so that admins can see what to do with you. Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also do not see how my redirects broke any rules, because I did discuss them, and I never interrupted their process of reviewing them. CROIX (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where is Antigua and Barbuda's Governor-General referred to "GGAB", the Prime Minister as "PMAB", and the National anthem as "FAWST"? The answer is nowhere. Don't create nonsense on Wikipedia. Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Antiguan media regularly refers to the prime minister as PMAB, so with the governor-general GGAB. This is very prevalent on political campaign signs on the island. This is the same with FAWST. Do your research before coming to conclusion. CROIX (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did my research dear. I find no source on the web supporting your view. Repeatedly making WP:OR edits is disruptive. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to add a source to a redirect page? CROIX (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can't you source it at the redirect's target article? Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- But I do not see why you are bringing them up, when these issues are being resolved/already been resolved. CROIX (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Because you don't understand Wikipedia policy. Your disruptive editing doesn't end. And I know it would not stop, if I hadn't opened this thread. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to add a source to a redirect page? CROIX (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did my research dear. I find no source on the web supporting your view. Repeatedly making WP:OR edits is disruptive. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Antiguan media regularly refers to the prime minister as PMAB, so with the governor-general GGAB. This is very prevalent on political campaign signs on the island. This is the same with FAWST. Do your research before coming to conclusion. CROIX (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where is Antigua and Barbuda's Governor-General referred to "GGAB", the Prime Minister as "PMAB", and the National anthem as "FAWST"? The answer is nowhere. Don't create nonsense on Wikipedia. Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also do not see how my redirects broke any rules, because I did discuss them, and I never interrupted their process of reviewing them. CROIX (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did report edit warring, which is the main issue. Also, I think other issues need to be highlightled too so that admins can see what to do with you. Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I’m tired of continuing this argument, I’m on vacation, let’s make a deal that instead of adding a citation needed tag, we can add a better source needed tag. Also, I do not see how my redirects broke the rules, as I did discuss with the users involved, although I do not want to debate that. And finally, I’ll agree to remove the recognized languages as long as you are aware that there is no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city. CROIX (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you are parroting the same thing. If there is "no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city", then high quality sources must be cited that explicity state that thing. If the soucres don't exist it is WP:OR. Also, nowhere it is written that legislation is must for establishing a capital city. No legislation makes London capital of UK. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thats the definition that is said here: [14] CROIX (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thats the definition that is said here: [14] CROIX (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you are parroting the same thing. If there is "no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city", then high quality sources must be cited that explicity state that thing. If the soucres don't exist it is WP:OR. Also, nowhere it is written that legislation is must for establishing a capital city. No legislation makes London capital of UK. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
User:StN reported by User:Dekimasu (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2&oldid=1086843322
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] (warned by Hemiauchenia before final revert); [22] (warned by Alexbrn after final revert listed here)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is discussion on the article's talk page, but I have neither participated in it nor edited the page anytime recently. StN is participating in the talk page discussion but has not ceased reverting.
Diff of a new notice posted to user's talk page: [23]
Comments:
The page is also eligible for discretionary sanctions. I would take care of this incident myself, but I edited the article a great deal in 2020. Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- This may be stale overall, but similar edits are continuing today: [24], subsequently reverted to stable version here. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
User:LemonPie00 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked indef )
Page: Adrian Zenz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LemonPie00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Optional method, not mandated by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be pushing your own agenda."
- 12:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "The author's own views and opinions were "challenged by several editors"? Stop trying to defend him. The article is supposed to keep an unbiased and neutral point of view, which the edit provides."
- 11:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Could you stop vandalizing the page?"
- 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Avoid bias. You don't get to paint only one side of the story whilst ignoring Adrian Zenz's homophobic views."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Adrian Zenz."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Note as well this [[25]] and their last edit summary, they are clearly not interested in obeying policy or in not edit waring. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Note as well similar attitudes (and false accusations of vandalism) at other pages. Strong signs this is a wp:nothere account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Given that a lot of their edits seem to be whitewashing the CCP or other totalitarian regimes,[26] including genocide denial,[27] I'm inclined to agree that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
User:188.66.102.161 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked)
Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.66.102.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089563238 by Czello (talk)"
- 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089558760 by Czello (talk)"
- 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- fifth reversion
- sixth reversion
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This is a return of long-term edit warring from April. IP seems to regularly come back to brute-force their changes to the country's nationality. User appears to have waited until page protection ended and immediately resumed. — Czello 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe rather than keep blocking, come to some kind of mutual agreement. At least Anglo-Singaporean which has been mentioned. You feel the need to have it your way. 188.66.102.161 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then you should stop edit warring and propose this on the talk page, as you're currently ignoring the consensus to force your own changes into the article. — Czello 14:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Ohnoitsjamie.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:103.216.213.41 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Rangeblocked)
Page: Vikarna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.216.213.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 13:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 11:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
- 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Not Disruptive Editing"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
- 13:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Ongoing edit warring at Vikarna and other articles (Mahabharat Katha, Dushasana and others). All attempts to reason with this new editor have failed, including a 48 hour block and the discussion at User talk:103.216.213.41 and my Talk page. The user's other IP 103.216.213.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already been blocked for 6 months because of disruption. A few weeks' block would be useful IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 16:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now the user is evading the block under a new account Sushmita Shamita, continuing same disruption[28], threatening me with blocks[29], etc. — kashmīrī TALK 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- *
Blocked – for a period of 1 month. I've rengeblocked 103.216.213.0/24 for a month.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
User:40.133.234.46 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked for 2 years)
Page: Couscous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 40.133.234.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "incorrect arabic also. adding references and actually researching this, not just using google; I looked in FOUR dictionaries. to appease you, I added both definitions. please let me finish."
- 21:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING as "the square root of k minus s"; the closest thing to anything in any reference is *KS. leave this alone. I'm going to work on this more; please don't revert while I do."
- 20:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "yes it is sourced. I myself checked and cross-checked it. it's in the entyomology section. please do not revert when you could have simply added the reference at the top or moved the reference."
- 05:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "changed because I actually looked it up in a dictionary?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Couscous."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */ new section"
- 21:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"
- 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Why are you doing? */ new section"
- 21:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Why are you doing? */"
Comments:
Despite my efforts to make them refrain from removing easily attributable content and pointing them to a list of sources (search google books for "kaskasa to pound") to prove to them that their claim of circular referencing is baseless, they kept edit warring and finally, blanked their talk page to continue the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There isn't a lot I can do to deal with an edit warrior who thinks that <ref>French, from Arabic kuskus, from kaskasa, to pulverize; see kšš in Semitic roots.</ref>
(i.e., their commentary inside ref tags) qualifies as a source that trumps the reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please also see this relevant discussion from earlier this month: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#40.133.234.46 Disruptive editing and edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interested administrators & editors would do well to review User talk:40.133.234.46: Revision history. User:40.133.234.46 has removed at least 10 warning or notices this month. Peaceray (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of two years. Edit history shows several previous long blocks, including one for a year. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Mausebru reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: )
Page: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mausebru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- Proof that the user was aware of discretionary sanctions on the article
- My warning that they should not revert
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 08:33, 18 May 2022 New topic started at the talkpage; 08:44, 18 May 2022, asking on my talkpage for an answer on the article's talkpage
- 16:00, 21 May 2022, Pinging the user to respond since they have been active without showing up in the talkpage
- [31] New section pinging for de-escalation
Comments:
The article in question is under WP:1RR. Pahlevun (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Note. It looks to me like you both violated 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I made one edit and one revert. Pahlevun (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you think of this as your "edit", but it was a change to the map and a removal of the date of the conflict, which previously were in dispute. That is a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I know i violated 1RR because I wanted to revert but Pahlevun reverted it back. So sorry for breaking 1RR, but Pahlevun, I have left a message in the Talkpage. I gave you sources Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you think of this as your "edit", but it was a change to the map and a removal of the date of the conflict, which previously were in dispute. That is a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I made one edit and one revert. Pahlevun (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pahlevun, I have put this in talk page. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 10:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Berry stark reported by User:Ab207 (Result: blocked 1 week)
Page: Prashanth Neel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Berry stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Previous editor changing details about living person called Prashanth neel, Prashanth neel's father was working as a bus driver & migrant in Andra Pradesh editor seems to be telugu person claiming after the success of a KGF chapter 2 movie . Haven't seen when editing after KGF chapter 1 release."
- 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Some people tried to malign the information of living person called Prashant Neel, Giving wrong information about family, Caste I fixed it with reference please consider my edit."
- 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Added a language"
- 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is not telugu, He is from ediga community which can be found in Karnataka. He was born in Andra Pradesh's Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
- 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is from ediga community ( Kannada caste ) he just revealed has special connection with Andra Pradesh he born in Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
- 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Prashanth neel is from ediga community there is no source that he is reddy"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Ethnicity */ new section"
Comments:
The new users is edit warring over the ethnicity of a WP:BLP subject. Removing reliably sourced content and adding WP:SPS sites to support their changes Ab207 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Continues to edit war despite stronger EW notice by other editors
- 05:01, 26 May 2022 "Bot spotted : Fixed the content"
- 04:50, 26 May 2022 "Warning: This editor is giving wrong information. Bot content"
- 17:57, 27 May 2022 "In telugu article there is no full name mentioned. Just mentioned Subhash."
Indistiguishable from vandalism and personal attack at this point. If same user is editing as an IPv6, the disruption is worse and might need a page protection as well -- Ab207 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)