Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[8]
Comments: User adding unreferenced content andWP:OR. No response to any warnings in talk page or edit summaries and persisted on reverting without comment.Qiushufang (talk)05:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that in the below comments by the user, they do not address the fact that none of their additions are backed up by sources. Nor did they respond to any of the previous warning on their talk page prior to this report, including edit warring, unconstructive editing, copyviolations, and unsourced content. I see now that this is not the first time and they habitually add unsourced content and OR but they usually let it go when reverted. ex.[9][10][11][12]. Reverts atYakuts adding unsourced content without comment:[13][14][15]Qiushufang (talk)07:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
You are accusing me of two very different cases: 1. With regard to Romanian Tatars, that was a wholly different issue which was settled constructively, so no need to cherry-pick from past cases.Yokubjon Juraev (talk)07:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
2. With regard to sources, I was only correcting erroneous information and/or expanding on some very briefly related historical facts. All of those expansions are taken from those same sources indicated in the references. I would have added references if I were taking my info from different sources not indicated in the References/Sources.Yokubjon Juraev (talk)08:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Wiki policy onWP:CITE andWP:VERIFY requires inline citations for material that ischallenged or likely to be challenged. I could not find the additions in the pre-existing sourceshere. TheWP:BURDEN is on the user (you) adding the material to provide inline citations that directly support the added material. Multiple users have reverted you based on this policy and no adequate response, in the form of a source, page number, or quotation has ever been provided.Qiushufang (talk)09:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The only source added so far has been from a primary source. According toWP:PTS, Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources as I havedescribed here, the part about rarefied air seems to beWP:OR. The entire sectionhere you added to has no citations at all and the parts added aboutEast Turkistan seem particularly dubious considering the name was not used until the 19th century.Qiushufang (talk)14:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I am very much appalled by user @Qiushufang’s bahaviour. I have corrected several typos and historically erroneous material inYarkent Khanate andMirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat pages. These two pages include serious mistakes. Whenever I correct them @Qiushufang is reverting them under the pretext of unsourced material. The user is persisting in his/her behavior. For example, inYarkent Khanate page, the above mentioned user is erasing the native Uyghur name (Sai’diyya, transliterated from Arabic script) of the khanate and moving to upper position the chinese variant. Moreover, after my adding of translated material from Arabic script and adding proper links, that material and the links are also being reverted unreasonably. It appears that @Qiushufang doesn’t research the topics before deciding whether to revert. Furthermore in another page (Xiongnu), that user has reverted my addition commenting that that is unnecessary addition. I wonder how the user decides upon unnecessity of an entry.Yokubjon Juraev (talk)05:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The claim byYokubjon Juraev that they are merely expanding by adding information that is already in the references is false. I took me a while to find the right page (the citation in the article is incorrect and the article text already takes liberties with the source), butthis edit, that information is not found inthe source.Drmies (talk)14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I have rolled back your edits: you are indeed edit warring, and the information you are adding is unsourced. If you revert again, you may find yourself blocked--possibly indefinitely, since you seem to have a history of edit warring and/or adding unverified info.Drmies (talk)14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are no "climactic condition" in Bell's book, or dying horses, or whatever. I don't know what you mean with primary sources, and at any rate that would be inappropriate. The stuff you added is supposed to be verified by Bell, because that is how footnotes work; there comes a time when you can perhaps choose whetherWP:CIR orWP:EW applies.Drmies (talk)15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Well you are also engaging in nonsense, you have reverted my typo fixes. Regarding the death of horses and other weather/climactic conditions, I see that you haven’t read the source.Yokubjon Juraev (talk)15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours And again, as the above discussion demonstrates, resorting to the talk page (unused in two years)might have averted this outcome.Daniel Case (talk)20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Each of these removes the information that the WHO is potentially reclassifying aspartame into a different hazard category, i.e., possibly carcinogenic. The second edit has been erased, but I read it before that time and it stated that the WHO was in the process of considering reclassifying aspartame, mentioning the committees involved.
Less relevant is that there are also other reverts, many of much I strongly support or do not seem to be edit warring, that have the same theme of removing references to aspartame causing cancer:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:here orhere(Alsohere)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: I don't think there was a violation so I didn't post it. I can if needed.
Comments:
Three of the first five reverts in "Diffs of the user's reverts" occurred within a ~12-hour time period. I tried to start a conversation on the talk page/user page instead of bringing this here. I would like guidance on what to do and how to proceed from here. I searched the archive and it looks like Zefr has a tendency to revert content even after other editors repeatedly include it, and has had troubles with edit warring. Because of this, I believe that if I, or another user, happen to add the WHO information, Zefr will likely revert it which might then break a rule. To avoid this, I'm preemptively asking what to do. In the meantime, I will restore the POV tag added by a previous editor and/or the other significant viewpoints tag.
Let me know if there is a different noticeboard or page that is better suited for this, or if I've made a mistake in my own editing.Chamaemelum (talk)03:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[26]
Comments: I want to start with two admissions. First, when@100.36.106.199: made their first change, I sawthis block made by@Bbb23: and figured I was dealing with a vandal and didn't make a lot of effort to resolve this. Second, I made four reverts today. That said ... the user seems to be ona mission to modify "aggressive archiving". The user is driving an edit war, and to quote our ip friend, "why don't you report me and see how it goes?" I am making this report.--evrik(talk)03:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I have undone that and restored your original block settings. Looking at what led to the current partial block and why we're now here on this noticeboard made me jump to the conclusion that 100.36.106.199 primarily disruptively pushes unnecessary meta contributions against others' concerns. That's not the case, though.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Evrik, this is something rarely discussed on the edit warring noticeboard because in 99% of the cases, the administrative position is "edit warring is disruptive even if you're right" and just blocking those engaging in it independently of their arguments. If I applied that principle here, you both would now be partially blocked from... editing a talk page... to prevent further edit warring about its archival settings.
I looked at the history of edits made by the IP, and the block, and surmised that the person behind the edits was acting in a disruptive manner. Also, the editor is being rather aggressive with their edit summaries. All in all, I care less about the changes made then there’s somebody hiding behind the IP, and being disruptive. --evrik(talk)02:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Evrik, "hiding behind the IP" is an oxymoron or at least a meaningless statement, not something you can genuinely complain about with such a static IP address that stays the same even through a namespace-wide block. If you suspect sockpuppetry, create an investigation atWP:SPI with your evidence.
I specifically find it confusing that you chose to keep reverting in response toSpecial:Diff/1162674117 without providing a reason for your preferred revision and – if I understand your message correctly – without even preferring your preferred revision. (?!)
(That talk page aside, the best place to seek a community consensus about someone's general behavior being disruptive isWP:ANI, but opening an ANI thread without evidence of actual issues doesn't work either. If the archive parameter changes were an actual issue, you should be able to explain where inSpecial:Diff/1162674117 that issue could be found.)~ ToBeFree (talk)03:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'll close this as stale with the expectation thatEvrik won't continue reverting without even providing a reason. I understand the general idea behind the report – the quickly-undone block might illustrate similar thoughts – but my position has changed since. Yours can too.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC) "Please don't make up any more "poorly sourced" excuses to erase the edit which is backed by not only Fox Nation, but also Google search"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[33]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[34]
Comments: Two editors,Anonymous345123 andFiletime, are engaged in an edit war atJuris Doctor. Neither has attempted to communicate with the other except forsome kind of sockpuppetry warning that Filetime left on Anonymous345123's User talk page (which I subsequently removed because Filetime hasn't opened an SPI investigation). I am only reporting Anonymous345123 and not Filetime because they have continued edit warring after being warned. I further acknowledge that Anonymous345123 has only made three reversions and thus has not technically violated 3RR but the edit warring is unambiguous and persistent despite a clear warning and an open section in the article's Talk page explicitly asking them to participate.ElKevbo (talk)03:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I should note I made the reversion before learning about the edit war warning -- I only saw the other user's reversion. Immediately after realizing it, I promptly communicated to the other user my reasons for the reversions. The other user has made absolutely no attempts to communicate with me, however.Anonymous345123 (talk)03:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. We have a couple of recent reverts, and a couple two weeks ago. Let's see if Filetime responds to the talk page discussion.Daniel Case (talk)04:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
03:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit bySundayclose (talk): I've explained thoroughly both in edit summaries and Sundayclose's talk page why this claim fails theWP:BLP policy, therefore, I'm claiming exemption from the edit warring policy."
03:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit bySundayclose (talk):WP:BLP violation; the methodology to used to create this number only demonstrates the number'sundue nature; the journals cited does not determine the number in the written claim;WP:CALC does not allow the use of the multiple sources to determine a number that then gets used to synthesize another number because then CALC wouldn't support the synthesized number"
02:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC) "removed Erdős–Bacon number, which failsWP:SYNTH andWP:OR; these sources don't connect that paper with the number; the secondary sources (i.e., Oracle of Bacon and rrrjewishtrivia.com) themselves don't look reliable; the number itself isn't covered by reliable sources; filled in refs; removed unnecessary parameters; fixes;script-assisted date audit and style fixes perMOS:NUM"
I maintain that all four edits removed a violation of the biographies of living persons policy (i.e., the depth of detail and juxtaposition of statements makes the claim, created via improper synthesis, undue). There isa consensus from a 2017 RfC that near-unanimously favors excluding the Erdős–Bacon number "mainly due to a lack ofWP:RS covering it". This claim wasre-added in May 2023 without the RS coverage necessary for a consensus change. Due to this, I was not only removing a BLP vio but also preserving an overwhelming consensus. I've asked Sundayclose,who acknowledged in 2021 that this consensus exists, to provide RS that "highlight [the number] as uniquely meaningful and correlate it to a specific project". They never did.KyleJoantalk07:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Result: BothUser:Sundayclose andUser:KyleJoan arewarned. Either may be blocked if they add or remove material about the Erdos-Bacon number without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. People agree that restoring this material is against a prior RfC from 2017. Both Sundayclose and KyleJoan were edit warring on this article but KyleJoan claims to have a BLP justification. Recall that fixingWP:UNDUE weight does not grant you an exemption underWP:NOT3RR. This actress is surely not defamed by mention of her Erdos number, whether the number is correct or not. Removing the number is not an emergency that calls for immediate action. This dispute is a plain old edit war.EdJohnston (talk)03:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
[42] (Note that this revert was of a revert made by an assisting administrator)
Note that the user has made a total of 9 reverts on this page.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[43]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[44]
Comments: User is edit warring over the removal of place names, which has commonly been included as standard practice in the portal, given the format of the entries.
The user has citedWP:OVERLINK, which seems to be irrelevant, given that the policy covers the linking of content, not the inclusion of content. The user has enforced this personal interpretation on previous[45] and subsequent days[46], and has continued to do so on the current page, even after administrator intervention[47],[48].
An attempt was also made to address the incivility, but was not engaged in by user[49].
Blockedindefinitely By the user'sown request (a first time for everything, I guess) the block has been upgraded to indef.Daniel Case (talk)03:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Sicilian Mafia edit war
There is an unregistered editor who constantly inserting stuff against consensus on theSicilian Mafia article. I request that this article be protected from unregistered editors.Kurzon (talk)15:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs. And besides, you wantWP:RFPP for this, not here.Daniel Case (talk)17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
19:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restores programming section incorrectly removed in prior edit. This is basic and essential information about the organization. If more discussion is needed, please do so on the talk page and do not engage in an edit war."
19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Removes citation needed tag. This article contains reputable sources and rich references. If more discussion is needed, please do so on the talk page and do not engage in an edit war."
19:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restores rest of article incorrectly altered. Again, please utilize the talk page if discussion is needed."
Both editors blocked from the article for the remainder of the 2-week partial block fromCBS Broadcast Center they were already under. Since that block expires tomorrow (North American EDT), it is shorter and less extensive than would have been imposed had no block been in place. Once again, this is because of the software ... we cannot layer (or toll as I would also like to be able to do) a short sitewide block over a longer partial block, or even partial blocks on two separate pages (i.e., different two-week periods, say), so this is the only thing I can do without upsetting the existing block. Hopefully these two will learn to work together. We are really getting to the end of our patience.Daniel Case (talk)02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:User removed content on Bigbangs article because it was unverified, i reverted this but realised my mistake and fixed it. My fixes were reverted by another user, which is considered disruptive as it was properly sourced. Hope this clears it up.Gamowebbed (talk)14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1163603944 bySpaceHelmetX1 (talk): Unexplained removal of sourced material. 2 sources is not a problem. Discuss if you want to remove it now"
single purpose account who does nothing else than genre changes and will go to war with anyone who dares to revert. previously blocked alreadyFMSky (talk)21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The reported userUser:SpaceHelmetX1 has engaged in long term genre warring. They were previously blocked 24h on June 24 byUser:Daniel Case. Since their pattern of genre warring continues (with no usage of article talk pages) I think it is time for another block of SpaceHelmetX1. It is not much of a defense for them to say (above) "I'm still right". Here at the edit warring noticeboard everybody always thinks they are right. Welcome to the club!EdJohnston (talk)01:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of my edits are rollbacks, rollbacks of unsourced content added by IPs. And about the mess that got me here, I'll try to explain calmly what my intention was: Initially, I reverted an IP genre change, right? Soon, the other user reverted my edit, so I provided an extra sourced material, for 2 of the 3 genres present in the infobox, thus getting 2 sources for two different genres using as a ref a website usually used by the other user who wants to block me... This is the order: (2), (2) and (1).SpaceHelmetX1 (talk)01:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. These defenses don't make sense. Check outWP:NOT3RR and see if it allows you to revert IPs without penalty, or if it gives you any special tolerance for rollbacks. Though elsewhere we do have special mention ofgenre warring. If controversial genres need to be changed, it should be done by agreement.EdJohnston (talk)12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Blocked for one week. Given the fact that the user is aWP:SPA and all of the material they have been adding to the article is unsourced, I was tempted to block indefinitely. If there is any resumption of this behavior after expiration of the block, no matter how far in the future (the editor doesn't have many edits and edits sporadically), I recommend an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk)12:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
User keeps changing page against policy and consensus to say a TV series is ongoing, after being warned and explained why it shouldn't be changed, along with yelling and personally attacking anyone who disagrees. See:1 (edit summary)2WPscattert/c04:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[60]
Comments: User committed edit warring on articleSikh Empire, removing existing information and source and even though he is aware of edit warring policy. User reverted 4 times in a span of 24 hrs going against multiple editors and without starting a discussion on a talk page to try to resolve the dispute. User is not new to edit warring.208.184.20.226 (talk)18:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Defense:The first diff which IP has provided[61] is not a revert; while in the other two the IPs (which I suspect are same as that of the reporter) clearly violatedWP:HONORIFICS by adding them after the name of certain figures. Multiple editors restored the pre-IP disruption version[62] and ultimately page got protected byPonyo[63] due to unsourced additions by the IP.
User's comment about reverting due to IP was addingWP:HONORIFICS is blatant lie. The IP 50.*.*.* looks to have actually removed the honorifics as can be seen here[64]. And Sutyarashi reverted the change with misleading description.208.184.20.226 (talk)18:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The IP managed to remove only a few honorifics, there were still many more left out added by other IPs that's why the page was restored to the last pre-disruption version. There is also nothing misleading in the edit summaries or "blatant lie"; everything was explained.
Would have been better to bring this to SPI. I blocked a couple.NinjaRobotPirate blocked at least one.Drmies blocked some as I was blocking some. I don't suppose you'd like to collect them at all (you know more than I because you blocked one without contributions), Drmies, and file a pro forma report at SPI?--Bbb23 (talk)15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
There's kind of a lot of them, but it looks like Drmies got them all already. I can tag them, which will make me feel like I'm being useful.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh.NinjaRobotPirate is frigging priceless, and I'm chopped liver,Bbb23? Yeah, I thought about SPI, but this is just some childish vandalism, albeit committed by an enthusiast.RolandR, bringing this to 3R is way too much work, esp. for you. Thanks,Drmies (talk)18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Drmies: Nothing wrong with chopped liver. A staple for many people. Not me, but I have a superior palate. My comment was about NRP'scomment, which I thought was a hoot. You know all about hoots down in your neck of the woods, don't you? Now fleeing.--Bbb23 (talk)18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, it was only in the middle of submitting this that I realised that it was not just vandalism (I thought the editor had made ten reverts using the same account) but serial socking.RolandR (talk)18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
01:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "Provide WP:RS for license, or call him what he was, an unlicensed engineer."
01:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "Redundant, and already clearly stated in 2nd paragraph. If this continues to change then it is going to end up being a WP:EW"
22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "Provide WP:RS of engineering license, otherwise remove, or clarify as unlicensed engineer (e.g. unlicensed medical doctor), or clarify engineer for what entity."
Hr5accsaz is a single-purpose account, focused solely on getting Wikipedia to say that Stockton Rush was not an engineer. Despite a lengthy section onthe talk page where they insisted that someone needed to provide proof of Rush's engineering licence, which no one agreed was necessary, they continue to remove the word engineer from Rush's article. –bradv01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The latest edit, rather than removing the word "engineer", changes it to "unlicensed engineer". This is technically even worse, as there are no sources that call him an unlicensed engineer, but many that call him an engineer. Hr5accsaz, however, holds to a rather unique definition of the word engineer that no one else appears to share, and isn't willing to accept either the sources or the consensus of the other editors. –bradv01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Given that the reverts and BLP violations are ongoing and this hasn't received attention from an uninvolved admin, I'vereported this at AIV in hopes of getting some eyes on this.—SamX [talk·contribs]04:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
They're clearlyWP:NOTHERE—their eight reverts today have included edit summaries and changes that are intended to be disruptive and targeted at other editors (not readers in general). May be worth noting their behavior on the Talk page was also disruptive, as anyone looking at the linked discussion can see; they proceeded to bludgeon every editor who disagreed with them and even began putting comments about it in other unrelated discussions on the talk page (e.g.[65], see collapsed section in "Occupation" on the same page).Dylnuge(Talk •Edits)04:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw it and it should be, but engaging in the edit war won't fix the immediate issue; I'm awaiting admin action here and once that's taken we can revert without subjecting the page to further disruptive editing.Dylnuge(Talk •Edits)04:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User continues to revert and does not discuss changes except in summary. User appears to have a history of 3RR violations on election articles.SanAnMan (talk)02:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
*WarnedBOCM,SanAnMan, both please stop slow edit warring and open up discussions on the relevant talk page to seek consensus. Both of you will get blocked in case you continue slow edit warring any more. Please open up talk page discussions immediately. And do read up onWP:DR. Thanks,Lourdes06:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Background */He's from Tigray, a poor and dusty place in Ethiopia. Used a fake identity so that the media has found a fake figure to play as a black person and abusing people from a peacefully country called Eritrea. Eritreans aren't black, but you european-australians can use that slug for south sudanese, southeast africans, central africans, southern africans or west africans."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Insisting that the article's subject is Ethiopian without providing sources while usingdefamatory edit summaries. Has likely been usingCtrl+F to replace "Eritrean with "Ethiopian", since many of their edits have broken external links by replacing "Eritrean" with "Ethiopian". Hasn't violated 3RR, but shows no sign of stopping either.—SamX [talk·contribs]15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[72]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[73]
Comments:
Well, it's not within a 24-hour period, but it's during the same period. There is an ongoing discussion, which Jadidjw disregards by continuing their edit warring (WP:CONSENSUS andWP:ONUS). I've lost count on how many times there have been attempts to remove/decrease the Mongol component of the Hazaras in that article. Speaking of which, their behaviour is extremely similar to that of past socks, I'll be filing an SPI in a bit if someone is interestedWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad. --HistoryofIran (talk)23:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Please do not link my account with another account. I don't know what's wrong with my editing, maybe it doesn't match your mood and desire.Jadidjw (talk)23:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
That edit where I added information and sources was not an edit war.
Blocked – for a period ofone month since this was in a contentious topic area and as the user has been blocked under IPA within the last two years they are well aware of this. I have accordingly also logged the action.Daniel Case (talk)20:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
10:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Amazing speed at which you read the sources I've posted, I'll assume this is in "good faith" and not that you're just blindly following your own political beliefs."
10:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Please stop removing three sources which explain what the latest research is, also please stop edit warring."
09:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Read the sources and weep guys, then, call upon the Ministry of Truth to RECTIFY this so you'll feel better. Go ahead and ban me. Someone has to stand up to this insanity."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[86]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[87]
Comments: Carter00000 has been edit warring multiple times with multiple editors on thecurrent events portal in recent times. Most notably on June 26 but again on July 5. He keeps citingWP:ONUS and then using that to remove whatever he wants without regard for others opinions, and ignoresWP:PRESERVE. I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such asUser:IJBall. It's really just a pattern of behaviour which is tantamount to my way or the highway on the current events portal. Even after a discussion was started onthe talk page that clearly established consensus he continued reverting it citingWP:ONUS again, making the discussion he started pointless. I don't see him changing this behaviour so I would recommend a block on the current events portal.GWA88 (talk)12:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I would also note that Carter00000 appears to have been involved in historical edit war disputes such as here inJune 2022 as well as accusations of harassment from another user who has edited the portal inDecember 2022.GWA88 (talk)19:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
On theJune 2022 diff, I note that I did edit war, but did not exceed 3RR. That being said, edit warring does not require a user to exceed 3RR. I only started editing WP substantively in June 2022 and this was the first time I had a content dispute with other editors. While my conduct was admittedly not up to standard, I think it being my first time, is understandable to an extent.
On theDecember 2022 diff, I'd note that the allegations evidently unwarranted, given that the userwithdrew the allegations just fifteen days later. I would like to express myconcernthat you presented this as evidence against me. As a long-term contributor toPortal:Current events, you are well aware that this user has disputed the portal over a long period, andmy efforts to stop that disruption. You yourself have presented evidence at aANI filing previously on this user, started by myself.
As a regular contributor to the portal, you are one of those who understands this issue the most, and has benefitted the most from the reduction of disruption from the user. For you to now come here and present these efforts as misconduct on my part isintentionally misleading and could be considered to becasting aspersions.
Firstly, please stoptemplating the regulars. Secondly, it's not battleground behaviour, I'm trying to establish a pattern of behaviour here, and yes that means looking through your past disputes. I'm sure you do make a lot ofgood faith edits but recently I haven't seen that. In nine years of editing the portal, I've had content disputes for sure but I've never been warned for edit warring until you left me a warning, which I didn't even break the 3RR. Finally, I did accidentally link to the editing function as you pointed out, I was rushing the edit as I had to go out and do something. I apologize. Mistakes happen.GWA88 (talk)17:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:DTTR is a essay, which is notWP:PAG. I also don't agree with the sprit which you have quoted this guideline. I have every right to warn you, and this right is not diminished simply because you have been on WP longer then me.
On "I'm sure you do make a lot of good faith editsbut recently I haven't seen that" you seem to accusing me of making bad faith edits. Please note that making allegations of bad faith edits on WP is a serious action which requires evidence, otherwise it is simplycasting aspersions.Carter00000 (talk)18:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I admit that my conduct onJune 26 was unacceptable. I went past 3RR, and could have rightly been blocked. However, I did stop edit warring and apologized to those I edit warred with. As a sign of good faith, I added a section to the material to increase its notability[88], my original removal being based on concerns on whether the entry met the notability standard for inclusion.
I would like to note that I started the discussion for that entry[89], and attempted to discuss the notability of the material, based on the information presented in the sources[90]. While I was overruled 3-1, I note it was not a consensus.
Consensus is not a vote. Consensus is formed after through discussion of the content and based on the strength of the arguments. This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually engaged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further[91]. It was frustration at this which led me to revert beyond 3RR.Carter00000 (talk)12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
"This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually eneged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further.". Well, that justabsolutely didn't happen. I argued for its inclusion based on its international coverage and the context of the story within the wider Ukrainian counteroffensive happening at the time. As did, @IJBall while @The Kip noted that previous captures of villages/towns have been included before. How is that "forcing the matter through"? We made our arguments and you just rejected them because you assumeyour opinion is the right one. And while you did apologize on this occasion, you have continued edit warring and continuing the same behaviour on the portal.GWA88 (talk)12:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think any reasonable person would agree that making a single round of replies to a person's initial opening argument, then moving straight to restoring[92] the entry, without even waiting for a reply, would not be considered to be adiscussion.Carter00000 (talk)13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. it is adiscussion. It's also ironic when you say you were frustrated at the content being restored without discussing the matter further because you do exactly the same thing when you revert content. You just revert then say "see talk page" in the edit summary ect..GWA88 (talk)13:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, becauseWP:ONUS states that it is your responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion. The fact that I have to start the talk page discussion and direct you to it, is already contrary to policy. It should have been you who started the talk page discussion, being the one who first added the entry.Carter00000 (talk)13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ridiculous. So you have to start a discussion on the talk page for everything you post on the current events portal? You were the only one with an issue with those highlighted stories. Anyway, I have made my argument. You have been edit warring, awkward and disruptive on multiple occasions on the current events portal. I will now leave this matter to the administrators.GWA88 (talk)13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Please do not make straw-man arguments. I've only said that you should be the one to open the discussion if you additions are opposed. I have not said that you need to start a discussion foreverything you post.Carter00000 (talk)13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I stand by my application ofWP:ONUS. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This basic policy is something that GWA88 does not seem to understand, despite his tenure editing for nine years. In fact, GWA88 has at times asserted[93],[94],[95], that it is consensus for removal of information which is needed, which is simply notWP:PAG.
I note that I've also had to explain to GWA88 whatWP:NOCONSENSUS is today[96], another basic concept, his interpretation being incorrect. Previously, I also explainedWP:PRESERVE[97], noting that while some issues can be fixed, a lack of notability of an entry is a violation of core WP policies, and cannot simply be fixed, perWP:CANTFIX. Notability is again a core concept, a concept which GWA88 does not seem to fully understand.
GWA88 frequently reverts those who remove his additions to the portal[98], without starting a discussion. This is edit warring. Each time I've had a content disagreement with GWA88, I have had to be one to start the discussion on the talk page[99],[100],[101]. In this discussion, I made an effort to compromise[102]. It is GWA88's behavior, who constantly reverts other editors with no effort to start a talk page discussion, despiteWP:ONUS, which istantamount to my way or the highway.
Of course I don't treat Wikipedia like a battleground. On the contrary, I'll admit when I'm wrong. For example, onPortal:Current events/2023 April 19 I got it wrong and admitted it here[103] as soon as the story was corrected. Nice try at deflecting away from your own bad behaviour on the current events portal though.GWA88 (talk)18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the diff you have presented, it seems there isno difference to those cases I have presented previously.
You posted anentry, and wasreverted by a second editor. You immediatelyreverted that revert without starting a discussion, as is your responsibility perWP:ONUS. Like each of cases I have presented, the reverting user had tocome to you and start the discussion, when itshould have been the other way round.
I also find this line "Nice try at deflecting away from your own bad behaviour on the current events portal though" to be quite interesting. I think it is you who is now trying to deflect attention from your own behavior, going through my talk page and looking for anything that will stick, including non-edit war related allegations like "harassment" , especially when you know it's not true. I note these actions also constituteWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Carter00000 (talk)11:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I also note that this part of what GWA88 has written "I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such as User:IJBall" seems to be castingWP:ASPERSIONS. No evidence or diffs have been provided for his statements. I further note that I have not previously edit warred with IJball, having only encountered the editor briefly on this Portal and one other page.Carter00000 (talk)14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I've self-reverted and re-added the entry[104] which was the focus of the content dispute forJuly 5, given the through and convincing rationale[105] put forward by a third editor.Carter00000 (talk)15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I would support, at the very last, a partial block from portal-related pages, perGWA88, and, if necessary, a sitewide block. I only encountered this user the other day when they were, for lack of a better word, harassing IJBall with warnings and violatingWP:DTTR and then violated DTTR again and templated me with abogus final warning—yeah, straight to a final warning. I also find it hypocritical to report IJBall or any user for alleged edit warring, which I didn't see anything that technically violated either 3RR or EW, when from what I've seen and what GWA88 has said above, this user has a history of edit warring, so dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite. People who have an active history of edit warring shouldn't be reporting others for allegedly doing the same thing. I know there's no actual guideline or policy against it, I just don't think it's a good idea.Amaury •17:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
As I've mentioned in my reply to GWA88 above,WP:DTTR is a essay, which is notWP:PAG. Similarly, I don't agree with the sprit which you have quoted this guideline. I have every right to warn any user which I deem fit, and this right is not diminished simply because a user has been on WP longer then me.
Referring to thediff you have presented, let's look at the facts. I posted amessage on IJball's talk page warning against making personal attacks, which is clearly not harassment, but a legitimate warning made in good faith. You reverted this message twice[106],[107], falsely claiming the message was illegitimate. I note that you also quotedWP:DTTR, when I didn't actually use a template. Given that I'd reverted you twice and warned you in the edit summaries, I posted awarning to your page. I further note that IJball has now beenblocked,in part due to the personal attacks which I warned him for.
I want to reiterate that difference in tenure does not prevent me from warning or talking to another editor. I found you reverts to be a clear disruption of conflict resolution process, hence my warning. Given yourextensive block log, I would say this attitude of simply blocking a less senior users attempts at conflict resolution to be potentially be grounds for further blocking.
I further note that you've accused me ofhaving "a history of edit warring" and "dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite. Both of these accusations are simplycasting aspersions. Additionally, saying "I also find it hypocritical to report IJBall or any user for alleged edit warring, which I didn't see anything that technically violated either 3RR or EW" seems to beWP:IDHT, when the user has actually been blocked for the violation.Carter00000 (talk)18:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I note that GWA88 hasagainreverted an removal of an entry he has made, without any attempts at starting a discussion perWP:ONUS, despite the discussions over the past few days.Carter00000 (talk)18:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
First, it doesn't matter whether a page is an essay or not. It doesn't give you the right to go around slapping warnings on people's talk pages just because you don't agree with them. Some things are also just common sense, whether here on Wikipedia or outside in the world. We don't need everything written out to the nth degree, as perWP:CREEP. And even without DTTR, your warnings were completely inappropriate. But let's put DTTR aside for a moment. Let's say your warnings were appropriate, which they weren't. You don't escalate straight to a level 4 warning; instead, you should have started out with a general note. Second, I personally don't think the block was warranted to begin with, nor do I agree with the rationale given for the block, especially considering he wasn't given the chance to respond to the ANEW report, but IJBall wasnot blocked for personal attacks. Factually speaking, according to the block log, he was blocked for edit warring and incivility in edit summaries, and it should be noted that incivility and personal attacks are not the same thing. He was also blocked for 31 hours. IJBall is the one who requested an indefinite block. Third, my block log here is irrelevant. Like GWA88, I have made my own mistakes and was even blocked indefinitely at one point, but I don't have an active history or pattern of it. You, on the other hand, appear to.Amaury •18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I find it interesting Carter00000 accuses me ofWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior because I brought up his previous disputes (as to establish a pattern of behaviour) but he has no issue with bringing up your block log to discredit you, and most of those blocks were over a decade ago.GWA88 (talk)19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Come on. I included my rationale for its inclusion in the edit summary, as you can see[108]. That's always been standard procedure on the Current Events portal.GWA88 (talk)18:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems that anyone they disagree with gets accused of casting aspersions or personal attacks. In other words, they have no issue accusing other users of things, but if someone else says something about them that can be taken negatively, such as them edit warring, they accuse those people of making personal attacks or casting aspersions.Amaury •20:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I should note that the reported party here has gone to the talk pages of users Beeblebrox and NinjaRobotPirate in an attempt to have some sort of action taken against me. That, in my opinion, seems to be some type ofWP:CANVASSING, especially considering I never violated anything.Amaury •19:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I've watched this for long enough. The usual resolution would have been marking this report as stale and pointing toWP:ANI in case there are long-term behavioral issues to be discussed. This noticeboard is "for reportingactive edit warriors andrecent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule" and it would have been easy to archive this without action. BothCarter00000's andGWA88's demonstrated unwillingness or inability todisengage from the conflict seem to require a closure that goes further than just warning both, though: Words failed above already.
Both editors blocked – for a period of2 weeks from editing pages in the Portal namespace.
I strongly encourageCarter00000 andGWA88 to self-impose the following restriction: If something you add is reverted, seek a consensus and try to convince others to re-add it for you through pure discussion, not a single revert. And if something you revert is re-added, try to convince others to re-remove it by starting a discussion on the talk pageyourself. If a legitimate report about edit warring in the Portal namespace reoccurs in the near future, the next administrative step won't be limited to two weeks.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164746395 byYoshi24517 (talk) It's not a conspiracy theory itself its a news website, and for it to be called a "Fake News Website" they would have to deliberately publish news they know is fake, which isn't the case since TruNews isn't deliberately making fake news, although what they do have may be considered fake news"
19:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164675356 byAdakiko (talk) Content supported by reliable sources. Don't wp:edit war. Discuss on talk:TruNews and get wp:consensus before removal."
05:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a few lines, It's not a conspiracy theory itself its a news website, and for it to be called a "Fake News Website" they would have to deliberately publish news they know is fake, which isn't the case since TruNews isn't deliberately making fake news, although what they do have may be considered fake news."
Multiple reliable sources show that it's a news website, what sources say that "They are intentionally posting fake news and TruNews is 100% sure that all they post is fake". TruNews doesn't believe their news is fake, for it to be a fake news website they have to post news that is deliberately fake. The most reliable source is their website itself "https://www.trunews.com/", they don't present themselves as a hoax website in any way other than what other sources are saying.Jazz0005 (talk)08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Most hoax websites don't admit to being hoax websites. And no, they aren't an independent reliable source for themselves. Regardless, you cannot edit war.331dot (talk)09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If you have sources that claim Trunews is a legitimate news website, you should offer them, not edit war.331dot (talk)09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This user is anonymously and repeatedly trying to alter the page, and is not interested in any discussion. Same alteration was done byUser:117.214.35.126 thrice. I presume the same person is using bothe these IP addresses.
22:04, June 30, 2023 "You didn't do math in primary school, so you need some source?? Source clearly says what represents "minimum point ranking" which is not something new (i don't remember you editing basketball articles in previous years, so looks like that you ARE NEW and you don't have a clue). .I"
17:43, July 10, 2023 "Sorry to disappoint you "respublik", but no.... Your link doesn't prove anything. And i will write once again and for the last time: you don't need source for calculating points, everyone can check and calculate, but you cannot?? And i will never stop to revert your deletings, not because you're not right, its because you're jerk and obviously a lunatic... .!"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[135]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[136]
Comments: The IP user is back to adding his edits without bothering to start a discussion. They've been making such disruptive edits without consensus at multiple. Each time they're reverted by any user they just put their edit back. I've been unable to keep track of all of their edits since they just keep restoring them on multiple pages.
The past two times I complained and their IP range was blocked[137][138], they didn't try to discuss after the block expired. The IP is dynamic so trying to talk to them on the IP seems useless, regardless I've sent a warning on one of their IP talk pages and have recently opened a discussion at one of the articles[139].
I've posted a talk message to seek consensus for their edits on their talk page just today too a few minutes after they restored their edits.[140]. But I doubt they'll be responding to messages or stop after short blocks, please at least consider placing a 6 months block on their anon editing so they're forced to discuss.Linkin Prankster (talk)16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank youEdJohnston. Although that might not be sufficient, it's better than nothing and I hope they will be forced to discuss.
They've now been told to discuss and warned on their talk page within a few minutes of making their edits, have been blocked with links to the complaints explaining why, and an article discussion has been opened for them.
If the user instead goes right back to restoring their edits without discussing or seeking a consensus after the block expires, I hope the block can be made lengthier.Linkin Prankster (talk)18:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
A /38 is a wide range and we cannot block it for a long time, since it might interfere with other editors who are working in good faith. Perhaps you can work out a smaller range that would also do the job.EdJohnston (talk)21:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
No, in fact I've yet to find an ISP that will issue a static IPv6 address to a residential customer without a substantial fee - which is one of the reasons I still use an ISP that doesn't support IPv6!Danners430 (talk)16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
There were also two reverts of the user's own content, which I'm not including here - I believe that reverting ones own content should always be permitted
This content dispute was caused by the IP user adding unsourced content to the article in question, which was reverted byUser:Mattdaviesfsic. Following a number of reverts, I continued to undo this IP's changes, as they continued to be unsourced. I did not deem it necessary to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page, as I instead posted a warning for unsourced content on the IP user's talk page, as is my normal practice.Danners430 (talk)16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) "Edited to remove a title that did not yet existed within historical figure in question's lifetime."
18:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) "Edited to remove a title that did not yet existed within historical figure in question's lifetime."
18:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) "Baş Kadın is a title put into use within the seventeenth century. It's impossible for Mahidevran to be called by a title that didn't exist yet."
18:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC) "The title of Baş Kadın wasn't in use until the seventeenth century, after a restructuring of harem titles. Therefore it cannot be applied to Mahidevran, who could not have used it before it's actual creation."
21:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "This literally was the consensus on the Helstrom page. Please remember to assume good faith and defer to the official consensus the community has arrived at."
It can be said that Adventure into Fear’s changes are based on the status quo that was proposed (and accepted) onTalk:Helstrom (TV series) after consensus was reached on how to treat the state of its relationship to the MCU.ChimaFan12 (talk)16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The material you wanted added, was adjusted by myselfhere to better integrate it into the article. You continued to revert/war after that on that article. -Favre1fan93 (talk)16:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I added it to the lead because it is important for clarification. Considering the outdated MCU status is included in the lead, the current also belongs there. You are removing it simply because you deem it unnecessary, and it’s a clear example ofWikipedia:Ownership of content, points 1-3.ChimaFan12 (talk)16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
the material was not outright removed from the lead, but moved to a more natural spot in the second paragraph (as seen in the diff I linked) to satisfyWP:LEADCITE and then sourced and added to the body. -Favre1fan93 (talk)17:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I can abide by that being there. I can’t abide by the rest of my edits to the body (including referring to the rightly-named Defenders Saga series as such, and removing redundancies from the development section) being reverted out of hand.ChimaFan12 (talk)17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I admit my previous edits (which were all well-sourced and in good faith) may have become part of an edit war. However, I have since read the rules regarding the 3RR and have been obliging by them. The edit I am being reported for today was nearly 2 days after the previous one and after discussion on the talk page went dry. I admit to being frustrated at the engagement on the talk page appearing to be reliant on inconsistent reasoning that seems conveniently designed to stop any progress. For instance, I make an edit in the lead paragraph of the Adventure into Fear to add clarification that was based on the consensus we’d reached onTalk:Helstrom (TV series) under the RFC (show was allowed to be acknowledged as developed for the MCU but by release it was no longer considered to be connected) and it’s constantly reverted, with editors feigning redundancy, yet onAdventure into Fear (franchise), when I literally just remove things in one section that have already been stated in that section, I’m told off for “changing the article drastically”. The discussion we’re having is not sustainable and nobody is showing up to it in good faith. There areWikipedia:Ownership of content concerns regarding how a select few users, including Favre, are treating any changes that are well-sourced and based on fact. The unfortunate effect is that progress is not allowed to happen as a result. It’s too soon for me to open RFCs on the article, but we really need intervention.ChimaFan12 (talk)16:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, I have to explain the consecutive edits at 22:06, 22:07, and 22:10 on 10 July. This is an issue that has only shown up twice at most, but as I am on mobile it seems I had technical difficulties with the page. I accidentally reverted my own edit at 22:07, and restored it at 22:10. No bad faith or edit warring was intended. The only definitive time I can say edit warring transpired was 11 July when myself and the other editors each reverted edits more than 3 times, and I apologize. Again, this is based on confusion over what the WP:STATUSQUO is for these articles based on previous consensus.ChimaFan12 (talk)16:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite the claims of certain editors’, it is acknowledged herehere following my proposal that consensus had been reached. The only issue at the time (per Infinite Nexus) was that the way I was implementing the changes without adding sources to the exact edits at the time (they acknowledged the presence of the sources on the talk page), at which time I thanked them and took a pause on implementing them as I am predominantly a mobile user. The consensus we reached is still the consensus.ChimaFan12 (talk)16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
It should also be noted that on every talk page discussion I currently have the last message. The most recent of which was nearly 20 hours ago. This includesTemplate:Marvel Cinematic Universe, which was last engaged with on the Talk Page almost 48 hours ago. Favre did not attempt to continue in the discussion, yet almost promptly reverted my edit today (nearly two days after my last one on the page). This does not seem to be a situation where all parties are attempting to resolve the dispute, but rather to shut down any edits.ChimaFan12 (talk)17:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And it seems to me that no one really has clean hands here. If this continues perhaps full protection for a few days while it gets worked out on the talk page is the best option.Daniel Case (talk)20:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC) "DC Comics is not a redundant acronym. Detective Comics is the company name, comics is a product the sell. In the exact same vein as "OPEC countries" is not a redundant acronym."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:User has been trying to preventAFD discussion from taking place regarding the subject. No efforts made to warn users before blocking them.8.48.253.174 (talk)18:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
just tried it again and they still refuse the let the discussion take place. Not everyone who nominates an article for deletion is abusive you know. You can’t assume every ip who post this is the banned editor you imagined.69.125.202.223 (talk)08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user repeatedly reverted my changes, to be exact they deleted the information that was correctly referenced in the T-90 article. Although I have repeatedly warned and also left a notice on their talk page that their source is invalid and unreliable and asked them to use the article's talk page to reach consensus, however they seem disinterested in discussion and intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Annh07 (talk)02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Annh07, why did you not open up talk page discussions on the particular article to discuss this issue? Also, the IP seems to be mentioning that you are using primary interviews of Ukrainian officials to write statements as facts within the said article. The particular edit that you have quoted here also somehow shows the same thing -- you are trying to re-insert a factual claim but the reference is an interview and some person's opinions. Please do respond on the logic behind this?Lourdes06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Content that the IP wants to remove was previously posted by a user on May 15, 2023 with the source. I checked their sources and other outside sources and the fact that some major newspapers also mentioned that some T-90s were destroyed or captured by Ukraine. However, I will make some minor edits to make the content more neutral as well as change the current reference with a more reputable source of statistics.Annh07 (talk)08:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
31.5.165.140, your long-term style of edit warring will get you blocked (if you escape blocking right now, that would be fortunate). Please stop reverting. Please go to the talk page and discuss these issues. I understand your point of view but you simply cannot edit war. Read up on ourdispute resolution process and follow that, and avoidedit warring at all costs. Thank you,Lourdes06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Neither has violated 3RR, but both have edit-warred more broadly.
Veverve's reverts are arguably exempt underWP:3RRNO #5 (per copyvio concerns raised on talk byAndyTheGrump) but also a very bad idea given the recent informal warnings by multiple arbitrators.
PPP's conduct, however, seems inexcusable, especially given the recent revert in which they said discussing on talk wouldn't go anywhere.
You sent a warning. Then you opened an ANE 6 minutes later. I did not edit during those 6 minutes. What was the point of sending it, then?
I have explained at the talk page why your edits were not policy-compliant, but you have refused to listen to me. Instead, you belittled me and tried to explain that you had the right vision of the policy. You decidedto state that yoususpected talk page discussion with this guy.would be pointless, and was correct. You havealso stated that me quoting policies was meclearly trying to mislead others by removing sentences from context, that Ideliberately omitt[ed] the last word in the sentence, which constituted anuse of exaggeration and deceit [which] is not acceptable. I even proposed a compromise, to which you responded by opening this ANE.
Also, sidenote, indeed putting a text online, even if you are the author, does not imply you have the publisher's approval to do so. But this was not my point in the disagreement.Veverve (talk)18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I would have considered partially blockingVeverve if the reverts hadn't removed links to a page that can be reasonably expected to violate copyrights. As this clearly and admittedly wasn't the reason for Veverve's reverts, I hope for them to feel rather blocked than just warned for edit warring as far as a non-block can cause that feeling.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: ah, it is a content guideline. I tend to use "policy" interchangeably for policies, content guidelines, and MOS pages. Sorry, I will try to change this behaviour of mine.Veverve (talk)20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yup. I was rapidly forming a 'here to poke' opinion regarding PPP's behaviour at Metatron, and the 'how much I loathe this site, and these people' comment above seems to confirm it. I'd be extremely surprised if PPP was the new user they purport to be, rather than a returning one with a grudge over something-or-other.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I had a similar thought. If I had a nickel for every truly new user who got into FAC drama before hitting 500 edits, I reckon I'd have about 0¢.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[163]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[164]
Comments: Filetime hasclaimed that theeditor with whom they are edit warring - an editor who stopped edit-warring after beingwarned over a week ago - is a sockpuppet. They have not provided substantive evidence or, more importantly, opened aninvestigation.ElKevbo (talk)21:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This seems like it would be better discussed at other fora. Am I mistaken, or is this not the first time edit-warring by these two has been reported here?Daniel Case (talk)22:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: What remedy do you recommend for this editor who is blatantly edit warring? Warnings and discussion in the article's Talk page have done nothing.ElKevbo (talk)00:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Was it RFPP where I might have seen this in the past? Maybe protection, or an indefinite block from that page. But if someone thinks they're a sock, SPI would be the place to take it first.Daniel Case (talk)03:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[185]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[186]
Comments:
This is an instance of someone pushing a political/cultural viewpoint and changing the name of an event/details to make it more inflammatory withoutWP:CONSENSUS to do so in violation ofWP:NPOV,WP:MOS, etc. The general information contained here has been in place for over a decade. If other reliable sources claim otherwise, it is certainly reasonable to include clarification that the account of the situation is disputed, but should be presented in aWP:NPOV and in a balanced manner. Bold claims "this is a massacre"/"none of these are reliable"/"this statement from a source is unreliable" (paraphrased) should be backed by clear evidence, not a POV push via edits alone to avoid discussion. Other users concur as well:[187]. Misleading edit summaries are a related issue and seem to be an intent to deceive or downplay (none of these are "minor" edits and the summaries do not reflect the contents of the actions taken, just samples):[188][189][190]. This dispute has spilled over into other pages (listed above)
It is notable that, despite differences of opinion here, I believe many of the ABT's contributions are a benefit. Most can easily be included and would support a more recent revision to incorporate such changes. But pushing "this is a massacre" and "Benner is wrong" based on the assessment of 1-2 academics vs the body of published knowledge on the subject is inappropriate; WP is not a forum toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Such information can certainly be included as a "It is disputed..." or "Historians disagree..." caveat.
Not long ago, myself and other editors experienced similar issues with this editor at theHuey Long article. Two examples I can think of include possibleedit warring and a possibleWP:TPO Violation. I might've been wrong, so I tried contacting an admin for guidance but there was no response, so I just stopped editing at that article altogether as a result.DN (talk)22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This was posted one hour and twenty two minutes after their post onTalk:Lawrence Sullivan Ross#Battle_or_Massacre_+_associated_points. A number of the diffs are incorrect or not reverts. Please review the history of the articles mentioned, this user may have issues withWP:COMPETENCE regarding citations. Several of the claims made are misleading and/or outright inaccurate. This user has attempted to defend a demeaning misquote in all the articles mentioned. Unlike in the opposite case, proper sources have been added in my edits. The article titled "Battle of Pease River" had its title in quotes in the infobox for quite some time. It was known as the "Pease River fight" during its time and was later labeled a "Battle"sometime in the 20th century. None of my additions are violations of NPOV. Others have concurred with my edits to the pages mentioned as well, seeTalk:Lawrence Sullivan Ross#Featured_status?, and I have been thanked for them (I've also been thanked in the past by the user who is the author of this report). They failed to mention their first message on my talk page, possibly because they were casting anWP:ASPERSION.
Diff of attempt to cast aspersions to user's talk page (their 1st post)[191].
I've also been thanked in the past by the user who is the author of this report Indeed you have. Not all of your changes are problematic; a warning is just that (see also below). Let's discuss and build a consensus.Buffs (talk)16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Result:User:Aquabluetesla iswarned to make no further reverts at any of the three articles until such time as they obtain a talk page consensus in their favor. Whether to describe the Battle of Pease River as a massacre needs agreement of editors and can't be decided unilaterally by Aquabluetesla.EdJohnston (talk)04:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency, not all of these violate "no reverts" or adding "massacre", but demonstrate further disruptive editing since the warning. This is mostly for documentation purposes.Buffs (talk)18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This user is continuing with "quibbling", and selectively and incorrectly choosing diffs. This seems to be very personal & political to them (please review their essay on their user talk page). It is a far stretch to call my recent edits "disruptive". My edits are not "disruptive" nor have I made any 3RR violations. I changed what I originally added, the "Pease River Massacre" tothe "Massacre of Pease River", because I was temporarilymisled by an edit summary. I later acknowledged thatit was a mistake and it was correct when I originally added it to the lead. The user will likely have their own report very soonif disruption such as this continues.Aquabluetesla (talk)14:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I did not break the three revert rule. I am improving the article when Khirurg continously changes my edits removing sourced material while adding unsourced original research. –Βατο (talk)14:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
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. It's apparent the addition of the material by Alexikoua was not to your liking, and you waited till the 24 hour window had just expired to revert it.Khirurg (talk)14:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It is not a revert, I expanded the information providing relevant clarification according to the sources, and you immediately changed it adding original research, and making this report although I did not break the 3rr. –Βατο (talk)14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
With this edit14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I added content, and Alexikoua's information is still included, but expanded and clarified. In the process of editing some parts may change slightly, but even if it is counted as a revert, still, I did not break the three revert rule. –Βατο (talk)15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not "expanded" and "clarified", the meaning is completely changed. You didn't change it "slightly", you changed it almost completely. And you did it just minutes after the 24 hour window expired.Khirurg (talk)15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved editor Since the diffs above concern different parts of the article, it is not clear if all the diffs are reverts. The evaluation becomes even harder when one takes into account that Bato is not an edit-warrior. Indeed, Bato is one of those rare Balkan editors who do not have any sanctions in their logs after 8 years of editing. So my advice to both editors is to open RfCs to sort out their content disputes, instead of wasting time with pointless discussions of the kind "This was a revert, that was not a revert".Ktrimi991 (talk)18:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I took a closer look at the diffs. The second one is something between a revert and a non-revert. Bato made some rewording of the content. The first diff is a removal of Khirurg's original research. One can even go as far as to ask if Khirurg added the unsourced content there to make Bato revert and have a justification to report. Anyways, that is pointless to discuss and we should not make assumptions. In this situation I think that all what an admin should do is to remind people ofWP:RFC. Blocking a long-term editor with a clear record for making an unclear number of reverts and for removing unsourced content is not a good idea.Ktrimi991 (talk)19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved editor Although it can be argued that not every single revert of Bατο are considered "full reverts", his edit warring at that article did break the 3RR.--Azor (talk).21:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The report claims that this edit14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) (diff #2) by Bato constitutes a revert ofthis edit which added the sentencewhile his subject population was by vast majority Greek. Bato didn't remove this sentence. It's inaccurate and potentially misleading - for editors who will not check each edit carefully - that the report claims something which the editor never did. He expanded it per the cited source and other publications:In central Greece and the PeloponneseGreek-speakers constituted the vast majority. This just isn't a revert. As such, there's no 3RR breach.--Maleschreiber (talk)21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Declined per discussion as it's not clear that this qualifies and that both editors would be better advised to find some formal way to work this out (there's also DR/N, and various project talk pages). My sole action in response to this will be putting a CTOPS notice on the article talk page, since it qualifies.Daniel Case (talk)22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: From the above 'uninvolved editors' only AzorzaI is uninvolved in the Greek-Albanian desputes that inlude Βατο, see also: [[198]].Alexikoua (talk)19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Literary sources */ new pic at the introduction is fine - added the older pic further down."
13:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1165168209 byKtrimi991 (talk) rv, absolutely not an improvement.The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic (..) and summarize the most important points... By viewing the article, the Albanian epic poem is simply explained in order to go more in depth on the "Oral traditions" and is insignificant overall."
04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) "fixed the lead - unnecessary paragraph for such a small part in the article overall. I agree it can be mentioned though"
00:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) "this statement has no place in the lead, relocated to the right section where the topic about his name goes more in depth."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Has made 5 reverts today onMiloš Obilić. Also has made around 11 reverts onAndrea II Muzaka since July 8 ("slow edit warring"). Today resumed edit warring onRozafa Castle, where they have made 9 reverts since July 6. The editor gets involved in edit warring, stays one or two days away, and then resumes the edit warring. They do so probably to avoid breaching the 3RR, though today they breached it.Ktrimi991 (talk)15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In theMiloš Obilić. The first one was done in order to stabilize the article so we could find a middle ground. Previous editor "Malescreiber" already did this revert 1 minute previously to me, but it got added back by an accident I believe. The second one isn't even a revert. I did not count the 4th one as a revert, as It partially got removed to reach consensus as you can tell. However, to avoid future edit warring it was taken to the TP.
Comments:
My contributions onAndrea II Muzaka are not an attempt to avoid 3RR. It's because I'm studying the sources continuously - take a look at the Talkpage for that article. I did not "resume any edit warring" onRozafa Castle, I did one revert and stopped even though it got added quickly after. This report is a stretch and takes stuff very out of context.--Azor (talk).15:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
your first revert on Milos Obilic was here[200], here you removed content that had been readded in a revert by another user. Then ktrimi991 readded the content you had removed which you again reverted here[201], this is your second revert. you then reverted my additions[202], here you reached 3rv. then you removed the content you disagreed with from the lead[203] which had been restored by another user making this your 4th revert. then since i readded the content, but kept the images as you had said they were fine. then you reverted[204] the images making you have 5RVs in less than 24 hours.Durraz0 (talk)15:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
the[59] was not me directly attempting to revert. I was editing the old picture you removed just further down while letting your edit of the new pic stay, but since the editor Malescreiber and I was editing at the same time - it caused his edit to vanish. Malescreiber was actually, in fact, reverting your edit - where my edit crashed with his where just I attempted to move the old lead picture further down in the picture.
Then we all parts agreed to take to the talkpage, and since I saw that my [59] edit accidently crashed with Malescreiber's attempt toWP:STABLE, I went on to finish his edit.[60]
The last two "reverts" was not intended to actually revert anyone's new edits, which you could obviously tell if you actually studied the edits.--Azor (talk).16:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Azorzal is a relatively new editor, and this report has an element ofWP:BITE and "gotcha" to it. The warning by Ktrimi991 is totally inadequate as it was from 5 days ago at another article. They could have warned Azorzal over today's edits atMilos Obilic, but apparently chose not to, so as to make it more likely to "get" him.
But there is another far deeper problem here that this report leaves out. As the history ofMilos Obilic,Andrea II Muzaka,Rozafa Castle, and many other articles show, there is a group of editors of the same POV that "shares" reverts as a way to game 3RR. They either take turns reverting against a lone editor, as is the case here, or, as soon as one editor exhausts their 3RR limit, another steps in to take their place, as can be seenhere. This has been going on for avery long time and has resulted in these editors having a de-facto veto over any edits to the Balkan topic area. I have compiled a massive amount of evidence regarding this behavior[205], which needs to be looked at in depth (I do need to update it with the latest examples, of which there are so many I haven't had the time to do so yet).Khirurg (talk)16:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
They could have warned Azorzal over today's edits atMilos Obilic, but apparently chose not to, so as to make it more likely to "get" him. I will not warn the same person every day, there is no rule that I should warn him the same day I report him. And given your recent AE-logged warning for personal attacks, you should refrain from making unconstructive assumptions about other editors.Ktrimi991 (talk)16:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from castingWP:ASPERSIONS. you have been warned for such many times in the past, and it has been made clear to you that this counts as a personal attack, something which you have been blocked for.Durraz0 (talk)17:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The warning by Ktrimi991 is totally inadequate as it was from 5 days ago at another article. what rule says that a warning in inadequate if it was cast less than a week ago?Durraz0 (talk)17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
AzorzaI, should you wish to self-revert your last revert on the article, this would be a good time to do it and to show your intent to not edit war. If you don't do it, your first block will come very soon. All the rest editors, and Azor, please go ahead and continue your discussions on the article talk page. Try to not write every statement as if you're throwing a knife at the other person. Thanks,Lourdes17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@Lourdes I have of course no problem doing that, but me self-reverting my last edit will indirectly revert Malescreiber'sedit , as my last revert was me fixing up my accidental removal of hisWP:STABLE edit. I do believe the page should stay as it is now because that is, in fact, how the page was prior to me and the other editor's involvement. If my revert is still wished upon, I will do it.--Azor (talk).17:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It's sad that new ones fall victims ofwp:BITE in such an aggresive way, it also seems that we have the same group of editors coordinating their revert warring fire-power as noticed here: [[206]].Alexikoua (talk)23:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Note: 3RR has not been broken. However this user has returned several times over the past month to continually re-add unsourced material that has been disputed by two editors —Czello(music)07:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
As an experienced user, why have you not opened up talk page discussions on the relevant article talk pageCzello? That might be a good step forward. If the IP doesn't respond to the article talk page discussions, (or if some other administrator wishes to act on this) then we can move ahead with further action here. Thanks,Lourdes07:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Declined It has been a couple of days since this was filed; in that time there have been no further edits to the article and the IP seems to have backed off.Daniel Case (talk)18:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: The user hasonce again reverted. They are refusing to communicate in the thread I started on the talk page (I have directed them to it via their talk page and have pinged them at the discussion). They do not appear to be willing to stop their edit warring. —Czello(music)14:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[221] (not on talk page, but it's on the article's edit summary)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: This new user with around 10-20 edits have been posting non-reliable sources (self-made maps on Malaysian history articles). After being warned, editor continuously reverts. Also, this IP[222] is most likely the same editor due to similar reverts, might be good to block this IP too. If left unchecked, editor will ruin pages with amateur non-reliable sourced maps. Also, editor later on does includes sources but this doesn't corroborate the maps.Danial Bass (talk)18:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Since filing this report the user has added the map again[223] at Langkasuka. He also blanked this report. I am blocking for 24 hours.PhilKnight (talk)18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours I don't see a 3RR violation but there is still unexplained, virtually undiscussed (except forthis) edit warring across those two pages and no indication that the edit warring will cease.Aoidh (talk)00:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
[247] (user's account –blocked in Wikipedia since 3 October 2018–)
Comments: This user, also known asLivioandronico2013, keeps evading his block via multiple IPs, making long time edit warring for impose the same images –all created and uploades by himself– among other good quality photographs without any reasonable argument –or, sometimes, without any argument in absolute– or prior to obtain community consensus inDiana of Versailles andPaul III and his Grandsons articles' talk pages. In that reverts he also removes other constructive editions such as addition of references, improvement of existent references' format or addition of categories according to Wikidata's information, all of that with any reasonable argument for revert those edits, giving only that in which he calls me a "Spanish vandal" or that in which he claims his images as "Quality image". Note also that this blocked LTA changes his connection every day for avoid investigations.81.41.175.237 (talk)04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Daniel Case I think the main issue here is those IP addresses listed above and not the named user accounts. The user behind those accounts appears to be using those IP addresses to disrupt the articles. — AP 499D25(talk)05:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I was initially involved in this but I stopped reverting at 3RR and asked advice fromIsabelle Belato (talk·contribs) as I didn't want to go over the 3 reverting rule.
I did leave a message onKentHaaChe (talk·contribs) talk page as I thought they might have missed the section on the article that states "This is specifically on broadcast television and not on other television sources such as YouTube, Twitter or other online sources." See talk page contribution here[248].
The only edit I made after my 3 reverts was to reinstate the statement about TV broadcasts only. I stopped counting afterKentHaaChe (talk·contribs) reverted past 10 times.
I left the message for Isabelle Belato as they hadn't passed 3 reverts at that point and I wasn't sure if this was classed as vandalism or unreferenced additions. I should have been bold once they passed 3 reverts and listed it here. I shall be bold in future!Knitsey (talk)08:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:[256]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[257]
Comments: Straight 4RR vio (5 now actually) against different users in just 12 hours, and showing no intention of stopping and/or going to article talk page to discuss, despite multiple requests to do so. -wolf20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[266]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[267]
Comments: User Mydust has been edit warring on theBahmani Sultanate page to agenda push. This has started after I added sourced content about the origins of the first ruler of the Bahmani Sultanate off its main page,Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah which was expanded upon. Mydust has edit warred and agenda pushed on the Bahmani sultanate page and after I opened up a talk page, they responded once and then didn't respond further, only continuing to edit on the page. They have refused much of the sources especially later categorizing Andre wink's source, who calls him "probably an Afghan", in the same category as Kulke calling Zafar Khan a "Turk or Afghan soldier of unknown descent", while other sources such as according to Firishta, Zafar Khan was an Afghan. I was then pushing for this:[268] of him being either Turk of Afghan origin. You can read the talk page for my presented points and how some of the sources he disregards.Noorullah (talk)03:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This is also not the first time Mydust has engaged in an edit war. On theKhalji dynasty page, they engaged in a similar edit war over whether they were Indianized, and the edit war only ended after a consensus was reached on the talk page from editors to not include Indianized. Here are the diffs of the former edit war back then:
This user often refuses to hash out discussions on the talk page and instead takes to edit warring on the page.Noorullah (talk)03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Mydust would you wish to stop your reverts and join talk page discussions? You have been here for about three years with a clean block log. If you don't join talk page discussions, and if you continue reverting, it will be considerededit warring. Where do you want to go from here? Thanks,Lourdes04:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Lastly, the user only conciliated to add his Afghan or Turk origins (though still improperly done as explained) after I said that any further reverts would be put up at ANI.Noorullah (talk)04:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours I will also be taking the step of logging this short block as a CTOPS action, since it's evident from the user's talk page that they have:
Been a constant PITA all over the IPA topic area, forexactly the sort of reasons that have made it a contentious topic,
The block is 48 hours because a) it's a CTOPS action and b) because it's only the user's first block ever, albeit one that seems to have been a long time coming.Daniel Case (talk)04:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Per the user's declined unblock request, which resulted in a checkuser being run, they have now been blocked indef as a sock.Daniel Case (talk)20:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:diff
Comments:
Hi, this IP editor is repeatedly adding the same bunch of extra external links on the I'm Alive song article, againstWP:ELNO guideline. The user seems to not be acknowledging the warnings on their talk page at all, let alone discussing the addition of these external links with other editors on the talk page.
They are also making the same kind of disruptive edits to several other articles too like the following:
and not just the I'm Alive article. I'm noting that article because it has the most extensive history of edit warring / disruptive editing from this user.
Presumably they are the same user as the previous 82.51.12.168 IP, given that the edits are pretty much the same between them.
Update: From 16:47 to 18:05 UTC, this IP user just made another wave of the same disruptive edits again today! Examplediff 1 (I'm Alive (Celine Dion song)),diff 2,diff 3,diff 4. They seem to not be noticing this ANEW discussion, while happily doing another round of these disruptive edits again. I think a block is warranted here. — AP 499D25(talk)23:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@AP 499D25: They've also been targeting articles relating to Nicki Minaj and Beyoncé, but those edits generally involve adding one video link to the infobox, which I don't see a problem with other than the fact that some videos they add can't be accessed from my location. While I'm at it, looking at the page history ofLeft Outside Alone, it looks like79.47.17.39 and79.18.74.229 are two more involved IPs.ResPM (T🔈🎵C)23:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the contribs of the four IPs listed here overall, and it doesn't look like they are using multiple IPs simultaneously to disrupt articles. Rather, they're moving from one IP, over to the next on a basis of one to two weeks. Here's a timeline:
62.211.233.175: Active from 15 July 2023 –present as of typing this.
If I'm not mistaken, in a situation like this, common Wikipedia practice is to just block the latest IP address (or IP range) involved in the disruption and not just all of them. — AP 499D25(talk)02:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I've created a talk page discussion atTalk:I'm Alive (Celine Dion song)#External links and invited the IP editor to it via their user talk page. Hopefully they stop edit warring and discuss with me and other editors why these external links should be included in these articles.
Thinking more about it, I probably should've done this before proceeding to an ANEW report. One possibility I have in my mind is that they might not know how to start talk page discussions.
...
Anyways, to the IP editor, I encourage you to discuss with me and other editors on that talk page about the inclusion of these external links.
However, if you continue to repeat these edits again without getting to a conclusion / consensus on the talk page thread linked above in favour of those edits first, you will very likely be blocked from editing. — AP 499D25(talk)12:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Update 2: In spite of the talk page discussion created above, the IP editor just made another wave of edits/reverts to the articles, failing to notice the talk thread and respond to it at all:diff on I'm Alive.
Honestly, when I think more and more about this, it seems that some 'damage' has been done here already. TheWikipedia:Edit warring page states that one of the problems edit warring causes is that itcreates animosity between editors. Indeed, I feel that's what's happened here. So really I think both sides of the dispute are at fault here.ResolutionsPerMinute should have started a discussion at the talk page like I did above and invited the other editor to it, rather than revert their edits a total offive times in a row (three times consecutively).
Even I take a little blame in this, in that I should've checked for a talk page discussion and created one if not present before proceeding to reverts (though I only made one wave of reverts), let alone an ANEW thread.
Anyways, I honestly have no idea what is the situation here now, whether the IP editor really is disruptive and not listening at all, is inexperienced to Wikipedia and does not know what a consensus and a talk page are, or maybe doesn't feel good that their edits keep getting rejected by other editors...
Anyhow, I think the appropriate action to take here will be to block the 62.211.233.175 IP address from article space for maybe one week, in which hopefully things do cool down and they become aware of the talk page discussion, eventually participating in it. — AP 499D25(talk)08:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So I reverted them a lot, but if I didn't, it was clear someone else would have eventually, talk page discussion or not. At least I warned them on their talk page(s) multiple times. That counts for something. One thing is for certain: the IP is on the opposing viewpoint of 3+ editors, ignoring us entirely, and being purposely disruptive. As a show of good faith, for as long as these IPs are allowed to edit, I will no longer revert any edits they make to Celine Dion articles. However, if they start making edits all across my watchlist, I'm taking matters into my own hands.ResPM (T🔈🎵C)10:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments: New IP user, probably multi-account, whose only contributions are constantly reverting and making inappropriate comments that do not contribute anything (Trolling).Venezia Friulano (talk)10:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [Diff ]
Comments: This specific edit warring started from 4 June, when I provided articles in a move discussion as examples of alternative titles (1). The Venezuelan outlets cited wereRunrunes,El Pitazo,El Nacional,Tal Cual andLa Patilla. WMrapids would proceed to insist in labelling all as "opposition" sources, including in related articles such asEfecto Cocuyo andNelson Bocaranda. Issues in the changes include but are not limited to personal interpretation of the sources and, in some instances, removal of referenced content (2).
However, the main problem with the edits (and reverts) is that the user has insisted in changing the articles stable versions to their preferred versions, even after they have been disputed and important issues have been mentioned about them, acting againstWP:BRD and at times simply not engaging in the article's talk page (3,4). The pattern has been slow enough just to avoid violatingWP:3RR and ended atWP:VENRS after it was clear in a related RfC that the community rejected the labels unless they were discussed on a case to case basis (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute), but instead it has simply shifted to the other aforementioned articles, even after warnings against edit warring. This has not been limited to Venezuelan related articles or myself, and I'm putting forward the2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article has an example of this.
There are many other behavior issues at hand, but I have tried focusing in the main and latest edit warring. The situation is already complex enough and admin intervention is probable needed to prevent further edit wars.NoonIcarus (talk)11:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I've glanced at the six pages listed, and it looks to me like both users are edit-warring, and I don't see any current 3RR violations by either. If this is about an overall conduct issue, I suggest NoonIcarus take this toWP:ANI, but that they will have to find a way to justifytheir conduct as well.--Bbb23 (talk)13:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Note: 3RR has not been broken. This user was blocked for 24 hours recently byDaniel Case for edit warring. Past reporthere. There is a talk page discussion which they have been directed to twice. Immediately upon their block ending they've resumed their edit war, again without contributing to the talk page discussion. —Czello(music)18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
18:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1165760552 byMuur (talk): Discuss it on the talk page instead of steamrollering in to try and revert against clear consensus"
18:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1165619667 byItsKesha (talk): Reverting blatant vandalism against consensus, reverting original research re Zanetti and Xavi, reverting a revert which removed of completely unnecessary sources and notes"
19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) "Consensus has clearly been reached on the talk page, please stop with your disruptive editing and make something resembling an attempt to discuss this rather than blindly reverting solid editing"
@PhilKnight, I’m well aware that there is no strict 3RR violation in those particular edits and I never claimed there was. Edit-warring is not synonymous with breaking the 3RR. The policy you linked to clearly states that one can edit-war without breaking the rule. There is also no obligation whatsoever here to list links showing a 3RR violation in a report. It’s the edit-warring noticeboard here, not the exclusive 3RR noticeboard, and any serious case can be reported here. And this case this user has been seriously edit-warring on this article for nearly four weeks. Please actually look at the article‘s history. This is a very serious case.Tvx114:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Just curious, why I was the one you nominated for edits made to that article? Do you not believe the edits of Bakermann in the last day are a violation of the 3RR rule you are reporting me for? Were Lorry Gunderson's edits not a violation? And yet you scrolled to 9 July where I made, count them, two reverts (count Lorry's that day for a laugh) I'll save you the bother and link them myself:1 and2. Also, do you believe somebody shouldn't be able to revert edits which are demonstrably against consensus and therefore deemed to be vandalism? All my warmest wishes,ItsKesha (talk)18:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
PhilKnight, well yeah the 9 July string of reverts is technically stale, but the four weeks of continuous edit warring isn’t. Are you honestly going to ignore that?? What dou you keep falsely implying that only a 3RR violation is disruptive and thus santionable?Tvx101:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
19:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) "Why bother adding ratings for Civilian Series 6 and Celebrity Series 4 and 5 when you're not gonna add the viewing figures? The others stay as they are and will NOT be removed. And please update the series and episodes in infobox as they're outdated."
User Neverrainy has continued to remove theTV ratings section fromHunted (2015 TV series), despite there being consensus though the MOS for TV series articles to include them. They have also made continued misrepresentations of Wikipedia guidelines, includingWP:NOTSTATS.
The user is frequently reluctant todiscuss their reasoning for their reversions and makes edit summaries which only include shortcut links to guidelines, which they incorrectly apply as they only seem to read the simplistic shortcut name.Their talk page also seems to have evidence of continued previous instances ofedit warring.Happily888 (talk)05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Declined Placing a template on their user talk page is not an attempt at discussion. Please use the article's talk page and try to work towards a consensus, one way or another, and considerWP:3O if necessary.Aoidh (talk)10:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
05:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166226959 bySportsfan 1234 (talk) there are four different users that think (know) it is relevant, though. Please don't edit war. With the repeated inclusion and additions about this by different users, the ONUS is on you to try and argue for removal."
04:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166222615 byHiLo48 (talk) the shooter not being motivated by the World Cup, and it not being relevant, are very different things. Every news article on the shooting mentions the World Cup, it's clearly relevant and this does not need to be discussed. That it had a material effect on two teams and closed part of the event is definitely relevant."
04:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "it would be great if users who think that pertinent information doesn't belong in a certain place, were to move it rather than delete it"
User's last revert (fifth in 24hrs) came after the warning and TP discussion was started. User's TP message ofOh, andnever leave me templates again, especially inappropriate ones. In this case it was appropriate.[285]Sportsfan 1234 (talk)12:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff #4 was vandalism. Diff #5 reverted an obviously disruptive edit, even if it wasn't technically vandalism. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk)12:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. It certainly looks like vandalism to someone who hadn't done the digging. The capacity of 18,009 is supported by the cited source, so anyone inspecting that diff might have reasonably assumed that it was random stats-changing vandalism. You're right though - the stadium's article does give a figure that agrees with the IP - it was probably a well-meaning but lazy edit, since they didn't check the ref. (Why it has different capacity figures, I don't know. The source supporting the figure in the stadium's article seems to be a deadlink, but theircurrent website gives a figure of about 25,000. Perhaps the FIFA regs require more spacing than the rugby regs).GirthSummit (blether)13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Look, I've had a great day so I'll say, first, if we're going to continue editing in some of the same areas let's try to get on. Diff #3 also wasn't a revert as I was just moving as a compromise attempt content that three editors had added before me, and which you had non-3RR edit warred over, and yet you haven't complained about any of those other users. I don't know why, but can you try and work with me rather than with friction. Second, as the diff in your comment shows, I suggested you check what edits constitute 3RR when you flew in with a template - I have to assume you didn't since you still decided to open this (hours later, after I hadn't been editing, so what the aim of the report was is also unclear), and would like to suggest you do again. Misunderstanding policy and subsequently going after editors for it will not do you any good.Kingsif (talk)21:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Because there are too many IPs, not all IPs get warnings)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
(non-admin) The latest IP range involved in the disruption, 5.39.128.0/19, has been blocked 3 months byBbb23. 31.217.0.0/18 hasn't been blocked yet, but looks like there's still ongoing disruption from that IP range. I had a look at the last 500 contribs from it and looks like 268 of those 500 edits have been reverted. 31.217.32.0/19 has 134 of its last 500 edits reverted, and 31.217.48.0/20 has 82. — AP 499D25(talk)23:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked Zech22 for one week. See the block log for details. As stated in the log, if the user resumes editing the article to restore their version after expiration ofthis block, they should be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Update: 103.110.142.70 now also blocked byAlexf, though I'm not sure if this'll stop the disruption, as only another individual IP has been blocked, rather than the range.
I looked at the contribs of the /24 range, and there haven't been any other edits from the entireity of the range from the last three months, besides the edit warring on three articles, meaning no collateral if the range were to be blocked.
Anyways, to top it off, since there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry here, I have created an SPI reportover here for confirmation, and it would also add to the user's record if the evidence is strong.
One more note: I forgot to put this out in the initial ANEW report above, butSquared.Circle.Boxing did also technically cross 3RR on the three articles, though I'm going to guess they made the reverts underWP:3RRNO exemption #3 (sockpuppetry). They were actually informed on their talk page byLemonaka not to edit war with trolls, instead go byWP:BRI when dealing with such users in the future, which they acknowledged:permalink. — AP 499D25(talk)23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Declined I just dealt with the report on the IP placing the tag over at AIV and declined to block them since it seemed they might be editing legitimately. So for the same reason this could plausibly, to me, come under 3RRNO. But I also note the lack of any demonstrated efforts above to resolve this informally before coming here.Daniel Case (talk)18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@BangJan1999 andDaniel Case: I'm the anon editor that was bot-reported over at AIV, for blanking sections of unsourced puffery at a BLP.
That aside, User:Rodagonda is an obvious sockpuppet ofPitarobertz. A few minutes after account creation, Rodagonda immediately started removing G4 speedy tags fromSavitha Nambrath, as shown in those diffs above. And today, they're at it again:[298],[299],[300], minutes after Pitarobertz removed the salt template:[301]. No response yet at User talk:Pitarobertz to my warning about sockpuppetry. Anon editors can't create an SPI, we can only add new reports to them, otherwise I'd have started one myself.2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk)11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It's worth noting that while anonymous users and non-confirmed can't create SPI reports, they can however make arequest that an SPI report be made. To do this, on theWP:SPI page, open the box that says "How to open an investigation", then expand the green box within it that starts with "If you are not auto-confirmed", type in the sockmaster's username there (without User:), and press submit. You will be presented with an edit request window that looks like a normal SPI report creation page, where you can fill in the blanks as though you were creating the report, and press submit. Soon after, a confirmed or autoconfirmed volunteer will come and create that report according to the request.
Anyways, I've already created an SPI report for youover here. Feel free to add your comments under the "Comments by other users" section (don't forget to sign with four tildes as it is not signed automatically). — AP 499D25(talk)23:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
00:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) "It is not acceptable, because it it was just taken by someone without permirsion. Uploading picutures without her or an organizer's permission was prohibited."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
SPA solely aiming to remove image not liked by the subject. It has already been explained that WP does not follow the Japanese folk belief that permission is required to photograph someone in a public place.Imaginatorium (talk)11:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely Account was created a month ago and has only edited this article, only removing this image through an incorrect understanding of enwiki image use policy.Daniel Case (talk)18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[310]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[311]
Comments: IP is repeatedly removing reliable sources from the lead. This seems to be POV editing as the IP wants reliable sources removed that criticize Arnold Ehret's pseudoscientic views. The IP is making false edit summaries such as claiming "false information" and "vandalism". The IP does not engage on the talk-page.Psychologist Guy (talk)11:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: IP user consistently making disruptive edits to the regional power article, was already previously blocked under a different IP for the exact same behaviour, after getting his actions reversed the IP then proceeds to edit my talk page, which I revert and the IP reverts back and a loop begins.SpaceEconomist192✐09:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours And again, as the above discussion demonstrates, resorting to the talk page (unused in two years)might have averted this outcome.Daniel Case (talk)20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Page protected in full byDMacks for three days.Daniel Case (talk)20:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Note Because of the IP's pblock, they cannot comment here.Bbb23 (talk)13:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. We have a couple of recent reverts, and a couple two weeks ago. Let's see if Filetime responds to the talk page discussion.Daniel Case (talk)04:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely By the user'sown request (a first time for everything, I guess) the block has been upgraded to indef.Daniel Case (talk)03:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs. And besides, you wantWP:RFPP for this, not here.Daniel Case (talk)17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
WarnedBOCM,SanAnMan, both please stop slow edit warring and open up discussions on the relevant talk page to seek consensus. Both of you will get blocked in case you continue slow edit warring any more. Please open up talk page discussions immediately. And do read up onWP:DR. Thanks,Lourdes06:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Already blocked Globally. Indefinitely.Daniel Case (talk)05:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)