Comments: Please note thatDankJae inadvertantly exceeded 3RR too but immediately self reverted on realising. Therefore there was no violation by that user.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:44, 8 April 2024 (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. –EdJohnston (talk)21:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision1218078480 byR Prazeres (talk)I have clarified the matter by describing the amendments here more than once, so the problem is with you now because you do not want to see the sources"
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[31]
Comments:
Although the reverts are not all within 24 hours, they are spread out in such a way to "game the system". I request user@Bbb23: to please look into this, as he has previously dealt with this particular editor in the context of edit warring outside of the 3RR rule. Thank you.Oz346 (talk)13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Your last edits on both talk pages was a declaration to not further engage. And then you again reverted despite there being opposition by three separate editors.Oz346 (talk)13:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Oz346, well two editors who have been only contributing to content on the Sri Lankan Civil War, a new editor who has made some edits on Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan Tamil topics without engagement in the talk page, and a Tamil Nadu IP revert does sound a lot likeWP:NAT.Cossde (talk)14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde, Please show where I engaged in personal attacks in those two talk discussions in question without bringing up old unrelated discussions elsewhere. To continue to falsely accuse me of personal attacks is in itself a personal attack. ----Petextrodon (talk)17:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, you have repeatedly insulted me stating"Cossde seems to have difficulties telling the difference" a DRN[34] (which was one of the main reasons the DRN failed[35]), insinuated that I have"comprehension difficulties" in a talk page[36] and openly threatened me in another DRN[37]. Hence I feel I cannot engage in aWP:CIVIL discussion with you.Cossde (talk)14:09, 5 April 2024 (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 is also getting a little stale right now, although I would agree there are issues here. But they are beyond the scope of this noticeboard to resolve.Daniel Case (talk)18:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
ok thanks for the clarification. I had previously thought that edit warring even outside of breaking the 3RR was penalized in certain scenarios. As of present, user Cossde has now reverted 3 times within 24 hours in both articles. In the past@Bbb23: penalized 3 reverts within 24 hours, hence my confusion. Going by past behavior, he may revert again after a few days interval to escape the 3RR. Then I assume that again means it would not be suitable to re-report? I don't want to bring up something stale again, hence why I am asking in advance. Thanks.Oz346 (talk)15:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
As I predicted, Cossde has now reverted a 4th time in both articles after waiting for a brief interval to avoid censure and "game the system" (after he reverted a further 3 times in less than 24 hours[38]). Could someone please look into this@Daniel Case:,@Bbb23:. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Oz346 (talk)06:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Oz346 has failed to mention here that, both Oz346 and Petextrodon have themselves have been engaging in edit waring and "game the system" as Oz346 calls it reverting to push through controversial content by brut force without respecting the burden to demonstrate verifiability by the editor who adds or restores material perWP:CHALLENGE, nor respectingWP:EXCEPTIONAL which requires multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims. Please see the talk pages of these two articles on how they have claim sources that have been established as RS as bias and useWP:PRIMARY sources to cite controversial content. This is why I have raised this issue toWP:ARC.Cossde (talk)12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[47]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[48]
Comments:
The user has been observed adding infos with a story on edit summary, often with poorly sourced materials[49][50][51][52] etc. Despite not being open to discussion or seeking guidance from experienced editors as advised[53][54], the user persists in their behavior. There is a need for the user to familiarize themselves withWP:RS andWP:Edit warring, as they appear to be unaware of these practices. Despite suggestions to learn about these principles, the user continues to exhibit the same editing behavior.--Imperial[AFCND]11:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[60] User did not tell me to resolve the dispute on the talk page until after he's reported me.]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[61]
Comments:
User continuously erases the Controversies sub paragraph of his somali identity, uses a foreign BBC article that claims he said he was somali in a video while the article did not provide the video, citations i used was a tiktok video of himself stating his father was oromo and his mother was yemeni. there is more evidence for him being Oromo then there is for him being Somali.[62] He also failed to tell me to dispute this on the Johnny Somali talk page until after reporting me.[63]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[69] User refused to resolve this through the talk page.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[70]
Comments:
User continually refuses to compromise and has been warned for his behavior with edit warring.[71] User also attempts to add unreliable and uncredible sources (Reddit, TikTok, YouTube, Twitter) and uses them to edit war in the Johnny Somali article. After looking at his contributions it seems that the whole purpose of this account was just to be created to change the ethnicity of the article.[72]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User has ignored multiple warnings on their talk page. They received their first warning for edit warring at 16:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC).Shadow311 (talk)19:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
22:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* April 2024 */ You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
After their block expired, they are once again edit warring on the same article. They alsoviolated 1RR in full knowledge of the rule (as specified on their talk page).M.Bitton (talk)11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: User RowanJ LP, constantly reverting and removing whole sections, trying to hide and distort information, using little to no evidence which are based on "speculative rumors" and removing evidence that are first-hand accounts of the personality Johnny Somali declaring the information for the audience. Making multiple edits removing information within 24 hours --Aurelius5150 (talk)04:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: Disagreement about removing problematic misinformation quote WP:LIE, which deliberately used a quote out of context to mislead readers. It also tried to fabricate real history by passing off description of Chinese ships to describe the Javanese ships.
I have removed the quote, but was then reverted by user Nitekuzee. This quote was pretty famous and used in many publication to describe Chinese ships so i have provided multiple evidences to show that it was indeed quote of Chinese ships, but Nitekuzee continue to deny it and refuse to reply with logic (as seen from his nonsensical replies on the talk page) while still didn't provide a single credible evidence on how he think it could be Javanese ships and also continue to use the distorted quote rather than the real quote from the real source. (p.s i'm aware that i have made 4 reverts, because i thought the removal of template and misinformation by using real source were obvious vandalism and can be reverted as many times, now i know i was mistaken)Merzostin (talk)08:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)}}
so if someone didn't report edit warring fast enough, it's fine for them to do the edits warring? what about the revert? should it be reverted to the original, i'm kinda confusedMerzostin (talk)14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Generally, blocks are intended to prevent ongoing disruption. If the disruption has seemingly stopped, sanctions are no longer necessary. If you believe that there is a persistent problem with the user's conduct, then you can take them toWP:ANI. I express no opinion as to the merits of such a complaint, though.--Bbb23 (talk)14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The User in question, I believe DID cease disruptive editing on the article after I advised on his/her talk page that continuation would lead to a block. Collaboration is the cornerstone of the project. Regards, Aloha27 talk 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1218259691 by Helper201 (talk), please get the consensus yourself as both the policies i provided are currently against what you're doing."
17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1218258819 by Helper201 (talk) that's what neither of the policy says, with your edit the word "center" is inconsistent with the rest."
17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1218240347 by Helper201 (talk), MOS:ARTCOM, the article should be written in one variety consistently; "centre" is not a valid spelling in American English which is used per MOS:RETAIN."
13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217931734 by Helper201 (talk) both main text and infobox are in american english per MOS:RETAIN."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Both users tried to solve the dispute through a user talk page, but started the reverts again -[91]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[92]
@Brat Forelli: It was not my intent to edit war (the fourth edit you linked seems to have been outside the 24-hour window, but I agree the situation could have been handled better) and I dropped from reverting the article as soon as I saw an edit war emerge. No reverts have been made to the article (by neither me nor the other user involved) in the past 22 hours. While I do not agree with the user's changes, I don't think advocating for reverting such a minor dispute is worth time of either of us, so on my part I won't be contributing the article anymore regarding this particular matter.Max19582 (talk)15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined per above, as user's decision to withdraw from editing the article means, as he says, there is no continuing issue here.Daniel Case (talk)19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:Here, user blanked a section of cited text, calling it "supported by no citation" even though it was clearly supported by citation.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ArezKeder opened a discussion (atmy urging) at This section is pure garbage. AzerKeder has ignored attempts to reachWP:CONSENSUS, instead ramming their facts down Wikipedia's throats.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[93]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[98]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[99]
Comments: The user has an issue with treating Wikipedia asWP:Battleground and does not bother to open a discussion on talk pages and instead resort to reverts.
Would like to state user نعم البدل is engaged in the same behavior, and reverted myedit first without even reading the source which is factually wrong in this case. Link is to a severely outdated government website that makes no mention of his claim. I also warned them about their behaviorfirst. This is just a case of gotcha first. He also proceeds tocurse and get aggressive when confronted otherwise. The user has a pending disruptive editing incident on the Administration Board.UnbiasedSN (talk)06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
17:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) "There is no definition of “entire” or “full” length of Africa. The science of geography defines the “length” of teh continent (which is measured at 8000km) but there is no such distinction as “entire” or “full”. A length. Please acknowledge this. Thanks"
17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) "Again I am correcting a claim branded as a fact. For a record to be established, it has to be awarded by the institution or governing body of that discipline. Records cannot be self-awarded - and if they are, they do not belong to Wikipedia"
16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) "I corrected earlier. Then it was erased. I wrote the truth again, which is that Mr Cook is not the first and doesnt hold any record (yet) as regards his Africa run."
IP did finally open a discussion on the talk page but still repeatedly restored to their preferred version rather than letting the discussion proceed to gainconsensus. I also tagged the article as disputed on their behalf as they may have valid argument but are going about it the wrong way. Suggest page blocking to allow them to participate on the talk page.S0091 (talk)19:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[114][115]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[116]
Comments: This user wasreported recently on here by another user for edit warring on two pages by gaming the system. Since no violation was found, they've been only emboldened to continue their edit warring which has now escalated to the point ofvandalism, with cited content being removed. This to me appears to be clear case of gaming the system as defined above: "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." Without admin intervention, I fear this issue will continue indefinitely. ---Petextrodon (talk)04:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
As I have mentioned in the other report, both users Petextrodon and Oz346 have been engaging inWP:BATTLE to push content without building consensus in the talk page. Due to the disruptive editing by these uses I have request page protection[117],[118] andARC.Cossde (talk)Cossde (talk)06:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined The case seems stale as talk page discussion continues while edit warring does not, but since interactions between these two editors were a not-inconsiderable part of getting Sri Lanka designated as a contentious topic, it has not been in vain.Daniel Case (talk)18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case Could you please clarify what "gaming the system" means here since I could have misunderstood it? The edit warring stopped when this user was reported last time too and they went back to it which I fear will happen again. Does this mean more than 3 reverts are permitted as long as they are outside the 24-hour period and don't happen while an AN3 report is pending? Also, neither I nor the reported user engaged in talk discussions after the report was filed.---Petextrodon (talk)19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
SeeWP:BLOCKP. Yes, if this happens again, if it involvesboth of you fearlessly continuing to edit with the unshakeable determination to make Wikipedia's newest contentious topic are, the first one ever designated by ArbComwithout an underlying case, itsmost contentious, will be met with all the sanctions now warranted, with topic bans on the table, as I'm not the only admin who isabsolutely sick of seeing your names and the same articles on these noticeboards with absolutely no sign of any awareness on the part of either of you of just how indifferent you seem to community norms.
For the life of you, for the good of the project, I beg you, Ibeseech you, strongly consider taking at least amonth off from these articles and go edit some other, widely different topic area like sewing or golf or something else, whatever, where you can show us all that youcan do good for the project.Daniel Case (talk)23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case Thank you for your response. I will positively consider your advice. It's just that the wholesale removal of all my recent edits I spent considerable time on just inflamed the situation. I do apologize for the annoyance. Since Sri Lanka has now been designated as a contentious topic, does theWP:1RR apply now? ---Petextrodon (talk)00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
No, unless it becomes part of the standard set of restrictions, which so far is the case only with ARBIPA. But it could easily be imposed by an admin under CTOPS, and CTTOI that might be the better solution to this issue before handing out topic bans.Daniel Case (talk)02:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Continued edit warring even after notification of EW and even notice of this very discussionQTC17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
10:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC) on List of highest-grossing Malayalam films "/* Highest-grossing films worldwide */Promotional figures are not considered as legitimate. I have updated the collection in the movie's page. Please check it before editing it back. If you think it is a mistake from my side, please contact me through my talk page."
04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision1218835910 byOncamera (talk) 9.7 "either alone or in combination with another race", 3.7 alone, 9.7 - 3.7 = 6 (or 5.9 with decimals), it clearly says "two or more races (in combination) population 5.9 million""
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[129]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[130]
Comments:
User:Dha BSMYR has been adding non-notable subsidiary awards that mostly use non high-quality sources (Imdb) or plainly unsourced. Other editors have reverted the edits, but does not seem to have changed their behavior. Perhaps worth blocking as the editor is clearlyWP:NOTHEREItssheenabautista (talk)13:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Update, user has been blocked for a week by an admin from the page protection group. Will raise in the future if behavior persists after the block has lapsed. Thank you.Itssheenabautista (talk)13:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
First revert was made on 16:07, 13 April 2024 and second revert was made on 11:11, 15 April 2024. This is not a 3RR violation.Mellk (talk)11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined. The editor didn't pass the 3RR limit, but more importantly, they are using the talk page now, which is promising. For now, nothing to do.Dennis Brown -2¢13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, the two users are the only editors who have edited the article in the last few weeks in a continuous edit war, and neither has discussed the dispute on the article Talk page. I have therefore pblocked both editors for two weeks from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk)15:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we discuss it here? User Wk3v78k23tnsa sort of masquerades as an auto-message generator or WP admin (using terms above like "advised user" etc), and cites general WP pages without specifics and therefore pretty much uselessly. I believe I have a fairly good case against Wk3v78k23tnsa's bold edits. (A point against their edits, not a justification of an edit war, which I cop to.)Chafe66 (talk)06:58, 15 April 2024 (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. Really, this board is for clear 4 reverts in 24 hours or it is very obvious they are gaming the system, not for discussions or deeper analysis. Protracted problems should go to ANI.Dennis Brown -2¢13:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, but remember this article is in a designated contentious topic. If edit warring continues, 1RR might be worth considering.Daniel Case (talk)17:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
No-Falcon-4996 was blocked byScottishFinnishRadish for vandalism. Immediately thereafter, a similarly-named editorPixel-Lead453 appeared and started pushing similar edits. There are plenty of reasons for a block: vandalism, block-evasion, etc. But edit-warring (violation of the 3RR rule) will do. Note that the article has recently been atWP:BLPN, and gotten attention from seasoned editors there, so BLP issues are unlikely to apply. (I now see that I am in technical violation ofWP:3RR myself, having once reverted the earlier account, but I believe that it falls under the vandalism exception, particularly as the earlier account was just blocked for vandalism.)Russ Woodroofe (talk)20:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: User Jinjin Sa is spamming to the level of vandal the unofficial and unsourced information. The information is related to the unofficial office bearers viz. Sports President, Sports Secretary, Cultural Secretary, Cultural President, etc. The DUSU consists of four office bearers and the Office Bearers are not authorised to appoint or create any other post or designation.Further, I am unable to hyperlink the user being reported so the link to her/his talk page is -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jinjin_Sa.
Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article. Technically, this report is stale, but the user is an obviousWP:SPA who is clearly affiliated with the student union (see their previous username), and shouldn't be editing the article directly at all, let alone edit-warring over changes they wish to make.--Bbb23 (talk)13:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
13:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Transport */Non anglicised the names of the towns. Changed Bijapur to Vijayapura, due to multiple "Bijapur" cities across India."
Thanks,Fylindfotberserk. Regarding the possible block evasion announcement, I'd say it's more likely that the user thought blocks are generally IP-based rather than account based. To avoid confusion and bad excuses, I haveadded a warning to the partial block. Please let me know if the disruption continues.~ ToBeFree (talk)18:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Public records are reliable sources. Or are you implying that public records contain lies and are not reliable for some reason? Freedom of Information allows us to witness true information from the Government. I suspect this user is engaged in advocacy and whitewashing. His "cabal approved" self-label is telling. Possible breaking ofWP:NOTADVOCACY merits an investigation of its own.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk)01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours from the article. I have done this because, while edit warring occurred and no other editor would be liable since they were in good faith upholding the BLP exemption underWP:3RRNO, the idea that primary sources ≠ reliable sources is belied by many of our own policies. To wit, underWP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This seems compatible with using government documents (which again, are not always primary sources) to support the subject's birth date and place as that can easily be verified by looking at those documents. I would also commend Zenomonoz's attention toWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "'Primary' is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean 'bad' or 'unreliable' or 'unusable'."
Ido think there's a case to be made—and it should be madeon the talk page, or through discussion atRS/N—that these documents might be acceptable sources here.Daniel Case (talk)01:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case re: primary source. This wasn't a govtdocument confirming his birth name. It is a request to the DNI submitted by the journalist Julia Black (see requester column on right). Black is the one alleging this is his birth name, presumably from an old unsourced version of his Wikipedia entry. Black makes no mention of this alleged birth name in her eventualreporting. In summary: no government agency has actually confirmed this is birth name.Zenomonoz (talk)02:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Both users have reverted 3x in the last 24 hours. Neither has started a discussion on the article Talk page. Good job, both of you.--Bbb23 (talk)13:29, 16 April 2024 (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. I think that at this point the best thing to do would be full-protect the article for a while, but I'm not willing to do that without someone requesting it (also, it's necessary to set a watchlist ping when doing so as we cannot currently layer protections, so the existing indef semi will have to be reset when the full protect expires).Daniel Case (talk)02:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Page protected in full for three days; I have set up a watchlist ping in order to restore the previous indef semi.
In the future if this continues I might be partial to giving the article a CTOPS tag underARBIPA; while it does not seem like the edit warring here is related to the issues specific to the topic that often trigger long protection under it (and as I've said elsewhere, most of the edit warring we have over Indian TV and cinema is over the same aspects of those areas as cinema and TV elsewhere in the world, so why should that trigger CTOPS by itself for Bollywood when it doesn't for Hollywood?), we have used it in some cases where the disruption has gotten to be too much, and CTOPS would make available possible (emphasispossible) future remedies like 1RR if this keeps being a problem.Daniel Case (talk)05:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
IP in Australia is contstantly changing a mass of film pages with their own version of "effects".They have been prevously blocked on 101.180.97.95 and changed from 1.145.121.196. They have not responded to any editors comments and warnings and appear to change from IP numbers to change back to their preferred version.David J Johnson (talk)10:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Saqib, thanks for asking. I personally wouldn't do so before a talk page discussion (attempt) exists due toWP:BLPRESTORE, but if I had intended to enforce this strictly and technically, I'd have chosen full protection.~ ToBeFree (talk)18:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I see your point, but the user probably won't participate in the discussion on the talk page. Plus, there's the issue of it being a sock account. --—Saqib (talk |contribs)19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[196]
Comments: In the past two weeks, a Canada-based IP has reverted on five occasions the streamlining I've made to the article's lead section. As I've noted at the talk page,their revision is poorly written overall:
"He" this and "He" that for every sentence;
"He is also the former" is nonsensical, as there have been previous undisputed bantamweight champions;
It is bereft of paragraphs for readability, yet has an inexplicable double line break after the first huge chunk of text;
Inoue's athletic intangibles and knockout successes are listed in a highlycrufty mannerbefore his numerous – and historically notable – championship achievements;
His nickname is unnecessarily in bold and incorrectly places the quotes in bold too;
The sanctioning organisations (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) should all be fully written on the first instance, perMOS:ABBR;
My use ofefn to consolidate the myriad titles Inoue has held is much better than listing each one in separate, clunky year ranges.
I would extend a talk page invitation but they change IPs like a new pair of socks, and they should know about talk pages by now (first time they edited the article was in July 2023). 3RR has not been tripped, but it's a slow edit war nonetheless. DRN is not really an option because of how one-sided it is.
To summarise, my edition of the lead improves readability, is concise, and adheres to various MOS. The IP's edition is an unwieldy, poorly written block of text filled with cruft.Mac Dreamstate (talk)18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate, thank you very much for your discussion attempts atTalk:Naoya Inoue. The unregistered editor would be welcome to join the discussion, perhaps preferably with an account so that their user talk page is usable too. If page protection turns out to be insufficient at achieving this, please let me know.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Has Danish name, his father was Danish, has Danish citizenship, spent a lot of time in Denmark, can speak Danish, he identifies as Danish...some sad lardbucket americucks erase his identity, tragic"
18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "'Murican appropriation at it's finest, he has Danish citizenship, his father ia Danish, his name is totally Danish and he spent a lot of time in Denmark"
Editorwas warned for edit warring to restore POV/original research content on the BLP in question. They have been repeatedly warned about falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, an action they have repeated despite these warnings. Further, they engaged in now-oversighted harassment on their talk page. Their only engagement in the article talk page discussion has been to reiterate their accusations of vandalism; after making this accusation, they again restored the content without any consensus to do so.Pbritti (talk)19:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Pbritti, a talk page message would be wonderful. I've set up a calendar entry but who knows if I'll still use the same calendar program in a year. Thank you very much!~ ToBeFree (talk)23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "I exchanged a confusing term for foreign audiences and exchanged it with simpler English"
13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "I clarified the term I used. I used a more western term because this page is made for western audiences and only using Chinese terms is not good for western audiences"
09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) "It’s completely useless to point out that a Chinese president had a Chinese passport. It however helps more to say that he was a politician, that’s why I changed it"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Presently stonewalling in favor of what is obviously unacceptable prose, after a pattern of edit warring that began several weeks ago but kicked into gear yesterday.Remsense诉08:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I quite literally never got a good reason to remove my edits. My edits were randomly removed, without a proper reason dragging me into a stupid edit war, where I have tried to make the situation better by changing my edits to compromise. And the first edit skirmish I had, was never resolved as the user I had the skirmish with never responded, thus not allowing there to be a solution.Grizi fu (talk)08:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Warned given thatGrizi fu has agreed to"calm down and accept the other position", I don't think further action is required at this point. I urge all parties to continue the discussion atTalk:Deng Xiaoping and look for compromises / find consensus for the way forward. However, there was a clearWP:3RR breach here, so Grizi fu you need to stop reverting now and concentrate on dialogue. Further edit warring will be met with a block. — Amakuru (talk)13:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
ObsessedWithStarship II reported by Me Da Wikipedian
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.Bbb23 (talk)22:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[216]
Comments: Every single edit by the reported user has been to push the IFT-3 failure narrative, with the only two exceptions being reponses to my edit-warring warning.Redacted II (talk)22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is a description of all eleven of ObsessedWithStarship II's edits:
Edit 1: Claimed IFT-3 was a failure, despite the (disputed) closing of the RfC, which declared it a success. Reverted by Andyjsmith
Edit 2: Undid closing of previously mentioned RfC. Reverted by Andyjsmith
Edit 3: Claimed IFT-3 propellant transfer results were still pending, despite numerous sources calling the prop-transfer a success. Reverted by me.
Edit 4: Claimed IFT-3 was a partial failure, using misinterpreted source. Reverted by me.
Edit 5: Unreverted Edit 3, citing outdated source. Reverted by Me Da Wikipedian.
Edit 6: Unreverted edit 4, again interpreted source. Reverted by IlkkaP.
Edit 7: Removed statement on Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles describing IFT-3 as a success. Reverted by me.
Edit 8: Removed statement on Starship HLS stating IFT-3 successfully reached the desired orbit. Reverted by me.
Edit 9: Response to my Edit Warring warning, denying wrongdoing while accusing me of edit warring.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I make an edit and people continuously commit vandalism removing my content for no reason and I'm the one blocked from editing? I can't revert vandalism to improvements to an article?MonsterMash51 (talk)01:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I made a good faith edit. It was reverted 3 times without explanation. I restored the content I added because it looked like vandalism to directly revert a change I made without comment. People then started to say the language was biased (don't know how that is) and so I added a source and some more info.MonsterMash51 (talk)01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
MonsterMash51, the explanations are there on your talk page. Yes, that language is biased: it's your own opinion. Now, if you don't know that Wikipedia isn't for expressing opinions, and if you don't know what counts as vandalism here (those reverts do not count as vandalism: look it up, atWP:VANDAL), then, eh, you haven't learned much in the fourteen years that you've been here, and I'd say you got lucky with only a partial block.Drmies (talk)01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The total reverts to my edit exceed the 3 revert rule. Why is that other users can remove content and their version is allowed to stand and my reverts to restore the content are the ones that are moderated?MonsterMash51 (talk)01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I'll take that too. Surely you have learned along the way that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You were reverted by at least two editors, right? That means you areobviously editing against consensus--all the more reason for you to count your blessings with the light block you received. Finally, and I'll say it again, your content broke neutrality rules. That doesn't really matter for the edit warring, but it does indicate why your edit will not make it into article space.Drmies (talk)01:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not my opinion. The votes were 51-49 along party lines. The articles allege dereliction of duty, violating immigration law, perjury, and contempt of Congress. The infobox includes this information. Would it then not be false to say that the articles do not allege crimes or misdemeanors? Including the information about the republicans staying after is not an opinion either, it's just a statement of fact. I don't see how Wikipedia is served by blanket reverting facts and to claim facts are biased. I was not aware of the 3RR before today but it should apply both ways.MonsterMash51 (talk)01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[232]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[233]
Comments:
Became suddenly active, currently doing disruptive editing at many articles. Potential edit warring atUmayyad campaigns in India too where the user is continuously reverting to a version, which has been reverted by several other editors earlier for its non neutral nature.Imperial[AFCND]12:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week. I almost blocked indefinitely as the user has been disruptive since they created their account on on March 19, 2024.Bbb23 (talk)14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments: Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring across SpaceX Starship-related articles, but Redacted II has performed a large number of reverts with little attempt to engage in discussion orafter a discussion was started. While a slow edit war and not a strict violation of 3RR, this editor isviolating the spirit of the rule. Redacted II waswarned of this type of violation andownership-asserting behavior byToBeFree after their last block. After multiple warnings for edit warring, they are well informed of the rules.
This report is for the SpaceX Starship article, but I provided diffs of two additional articles and the mention of the edit war atSpaceX Starship flight tests to provide the additional context that this editor has and continues to engage in edit warring across the SpaceX Starship topic. A temporary topic ban may be warranted.Redraiderengineer (talk)23:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Starship Revert 1: the editor who made the reverted edit was clearly vandalizing the article, given that they also added "Going to Mars in may 2024 and going to the moon in may 2024 and there will be 200 people on mars in may 2024 and 160 people on the moon in may 2024 and moon base and mars base will happen in may 2024", with the edit descript being "ben".
Starship Revert 2: An editor removed IFT-3 entirely from the infobox, so I readded it.
Starship Revert 3: An IP made a good-faith edit matching RVac ISP in Starship article to that ofRaptor, Since the source they used was almost a decade out of date, I did the opposite, and corrected the value in Raptor to the more recent once.
Starship Revert 5, IFT-3 Reverts 2 and 3, Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Revert 8, : Look at the report directly above this one. The user who made the reverted edit is now indef-banned.
Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 1-6: the issue was resolved shortly after, and a misconception I had on edit warring was corrected.
Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 7: reverted to follow status quo, and reminded editor of that rule in edit descript.
The only connection between these reverts is readding sourced content, and reverting vandalism. The 3RR rule, as mentioned by RedRaider, was never violated, and for many of these reverts, there was already a discussion occurring atSpaceX Starship. Additionally, ignoring the edits by the now-banned disruptive editor, and the reverts prior to being corrected by ToBeFree, no second revert occured.Redacted II (talk)00:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Well in my opinion, Redacted II was definitely active, with many of his edits being reverts. And on the outside it does look like an edit war. However, as he said, many of his reverts were of misclassifying of Ift-3, so those are justified. And if people keep on doing something that has to be reverted, he did it. The accusation mainly come from (as far as I can see) from his Bold behaviour. If he saw something, he fixed it. What im trying to say is that he had the best of intentions, but overdid it. So if he tells people about whats happening and doesnt always act immediately, it would be fine.
The rest of the explanations arenot exemptions to edit warring. The other editor wasn't indefinitely blocked at the time of Redacted II's reverts, and in some instances, their edits added sources (reliable or unreliable - that could have been discussed instead of edit warring). However, Redacted II called these "unconstructive edit[s]" based on theirpreferred version. For example, atStarship HLS, Redacted II reverted an edit referring to IFT-3 as "the most successful [test flight] to date" with a March 2024 article from The Washington Post as the reference. Redacted II replaced that sentence in their revert with "successfully reaching orbit for the first time in March 2024." However, Redacted II's source is from January 2024 (before IFT-3 launched in March 2024) and doesn't support the claim.
Redacted II revertedNatg 19 twice on the SpaceX Starship talk page. Including the reverts above, this isfour reverts within a 24-hour period between SpaceX Starship and its talk page.
ToBeFree warned Redacted II on 27 March, 2024, but twelve of the nineteen reverts mentioned in this discussion occurred after that warning.
Redacted II involvement in this edit war was similar to the other editor that was indefinitely blocked (the other editor didn't appear to violate 3RR and this was their first warning), but unlike the other editor, Redacted II has been warned multiple times. Policies should applyequally.
The four reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II were combined with reverts by 3 other editors. When that many editors are reverting something, and no-one else is bringing it back, it isn't a stretch to say that their editing is vandalism.
By your own admission, seven of the reverts occurred before the warning, so including them is rather unfair. And given that the reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II fall under Exception 4, I'll ignore those for now.
This leaves these reverts:
Starship 1: Revert of height. No second revert was conducted, so this is clearly not part of any edit war. Other part of reverted edit was reverted by another user.
Starship 2: Revert to status Quo. Second revert was two days later (Starship 4).
Starship 3: Revert of specific impulse, reasons explained in edit descript. No second revert needed, so again, clearly not part of an edit war.
Starship 4: Revert to Status Quo, as source added by IP did not support their statement. No violation of 3RR, no additional revert conducted until ObsessedWithStarship.
Super Heavy Lift1: Revert to Status Quo, explained status quo rule. No second revert (until almost exactly two weeks later, when ObsessedWithStarship removed that statement. No 3RR violation, and since there was a 14 day gap, its a stretch to say Edit Warring occurred.
Going back to ObsessedWithStarship II's edits, before I decided to also warn them for Edit Warring, I explained why their edits were reverted. So, saying I didn't try to discuss the matter is blatantly false.
Additionally, the editor clearly knew that the success of IFT-3 was being discussed. Looking at their FIRST edit: "The consensus is clear on this". Keep in mind that the RfC was (briefly closed) roughly an hour before. And they clearly knew about this, because their second edit was to revert the closure.
The reverts on the talk page were not mine alone. @Andyjsmith also reverted ObsessedWithStarship II, but by this point I had begun trying to discuss the closer with Natg 19, and later Nemov. Note: no 3RR violation, and attempt to discuss issue on a talk page.Redacted II (talk)12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[241] On their talk page, as it concerns their violations ofWP:OR and their apparent lack of comprehension ofWP:SOURCE.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[242]
17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision1220073979 byJkaharper (talk) revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[243]
Comments: Reverts 3 and 4 are just outside the 24-hour window, so I'm bringing this here for a second opinion. Normally I'd protect, but that's not really an option for recent P:CE subpages. —Cryptic20:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
"instead of undoing each other, can we please discuss this in a civil manner here."
The first editors that were removing content were either IP editors or had a very sparse/odd editing history, and were leaving non-useful two word edit summaries, including ones that gave no valid policy reasons: "not important" or "not notable." I treated them as drive-by vandalism. Only when editors such asAlsoriano97 were actually engaging in dialogue did I consider it start verging into "edit war" territory, which is why we stop editing and start a discussion. No 3RR action is warranted or needed. -Fuzheado |Talk17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree. The discussion was opened to talk about the inclusion or not of that content. It is disproportionate to open a report._-_Alsor (talk)17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
However, the edit warring seems to be continuing unabated, hence why I have also reported the user here. The user did 4 reverts on the 17 April 2024, and potentially much more if the sock puppet report comes back positive.Metta79 (talk)12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Page protected – I've closed the sock case as Unrelated but have put indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the article. (Neither account named in the sock case is extended-confirmed). Arbcom hasjust designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, though the templates for enacting those sanctions aren't set up yet. Let me know if this dispute spreads out to more articles.EdJohnston (talk)03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
EdJohnston I've just indeffed Gabrielasirwatham for their response to my warning about casting aspersions on that talk page. I'm pretty sure we haven't lost a productive editor there.Black Kite (talk)20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Primary sources are acceptable when they are used to cite the author's POV."
19:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I will discuss this with you, but you had no right to remove the additional sources that I added to the other sections of the article."
18:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "What is the "flattery"? Describing him as pro-choice? Also, why did you remove all of my sources as well?"
18:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I didn't use any "heavy-handed promotional language". There's nothing non-neutral about it."
20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Changing some wording to appease PC language police. As for The Oxford Student, in what possible way is it not a reliable source?"
Your complaint was regarding supposedly un-WP:NPOV language in the section that I added about O'Neill's views on abortion. However, when you reverted that edit, you also removed all of the additional sources that I had added to other parts of the article - sources which you had no business removing, as they had nothing to do with your complaints over my supposedly "flattering" language in the abortion section. In my last edit, I restored those sources, but removed the section about abortion until we can work something out regarding the language that I used.--LadybugStardust (talk)19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
As I explained on both your talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page,the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. You do not have consensus for those changes and you should not be edit warring even if you think you are correct.Grayfell (talk)19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
And I am discussing it on the article's talk page right now. You still haven't given any reason why you removed my additional sources from the other parts of the article, though.--LadybugStardust (talk)19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that LadybugStardust is now up to 7 reverts (the most recent shortly outside the 24-hour window), this time restoring a self-published source about a third party (Greta Thunberg) that was criticized for his negative comments about her.Woodroar (talk)01:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
TylerBurden, I have no idea why you believed it might be acceptable to start a one-vs-many edit war by making and repeatedly restoring one of the possibly most controversial changes to the RUSUKR topic area I have seen so far, removing the map of the conflict from the infobox over two years after its introduction to a highly active and visible central article.~ ToBeFree (talk)18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Warning accepted, though I do feel the need to comment that it wasn't a "one-vs-many" edit war, the other party made the same amount of reverts as me (2) despite claiming to be attempting a "0RR" on their user page, so I find it a bit strange I am the only one affected. The "first" diff they included isn't a revert, it was my initial edit that they reverted. Not sure if you misinterpreted something.
01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision1219715594 bySanAnMan (talk) content farms are not due - you have previously attempted to restore this content against a different editor. Stop edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds aWP:SELFPUB to try to prove his pointSanAnMan (talk)03:00, 22 April 2024 (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. Youboth have 2 reverts. You'reboth edit warring.Ponyobons mots21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Updating image to a more recent 2021 image that has FULL permissions under CC license and took out the space between the I and P in last name in case that is the reason you keep reverting back to the old picture from 2017."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User claims to be Di Paolo's wife and manager. I have therefore left aWP:COI notice on their Talk page and pblocked her indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk)22:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[269],Please see editors reply to warning here:[270], editor has rejected the warning responding to@General Ization: warning withYour interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[271], see second discussion at[272] under "Your edit to Black War".
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[273]
Comments:
Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re:Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure.[274] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring. // Timothy :: talk06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out.ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here)11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: It is also worth noting that the editor in question hasremoved the warning and their reply on the user page. I have been seeing a lot of activity from this editor in Recent Changes and I think I seen this pattern before.CpX41 (talk)11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here— Precedingunsigned comment added by158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well.— Precedingunsigned comment added by158.140.53.34 (talk)11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
See this[279]. He has originally add this POV content and is working hard to retain the POV content at the expense ofWP:NPOV. Kindly look into this.Hineyo (talk)
As you can see I am only reverting the disruptive edits done by this user. The user is removing well sourced content which is approved by several experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages which you can check in their edit history and I've made a report about it on this page as well. Thank you.JabSaiyaan (talk)
Differences of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:-
The user is continuously removing the content which is well-sourced and approved by multiple experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages like -Sonu Nigam,Shreya Ghoshal,Arijit Singh and when edits are reverted they are engaging in edit war.
These are few of the many examples and also the reason why this user is doing this is because -[284], here you can see the user first broke theWP:NPOV rule and actually added this "POV" content where singer Arijit Singh which I suppose is his favourite was called "Greatest of All Time" and none of the sources attached were actually supporting that claim. So when the edit got reverted the user started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists. In fact the user started removing the edits which are supported by the sources which clearly mentions the statement or sentence added on those respective Wikipedia page. For a fact Every source or reference had a "quote" but the user is just being unprofessional. Please look into this.JabSaiyaan (talk)
Reply:- First of all the aforesaid user is not aware about Wikipedia works. No edit is permanent or is permanently approved by established user. This is an encyclopedia which will undergo constant evolution. He seems to be fan of Shreya Ghoshal which is why he is indulging in senseless edit war and is trying to retain puffery in the lead. Well I have removed only unsourced content and content which are backed by tabloids and weak sources. Reliable sources in Indian context is theIndian Express,The Hindu andTimes of India. However the aforesaid user is citing non-reliable sources to justify puffery in the article ofShreya Ghoshal as he appears to be her fan. The user appears to dislike and have strong views againstArijit Singh he have added false information of him marrying and divorcing a women without provide reliable source.[286] This is quite dangerous for the said women's social dignity therefore I had to remove it. And the information about Singh's step children was disputed as it was not backed by multiple reliable sources therefore I considered it best to remove it. And it is a fact supported by reliable sources that Singh is considered currently India's top singer see[287] and Singh is the most streamed artist in Spotify for year 2023, kindly see[288] and even the internationally credible and reliable source like Forbes supports the statement[289] so it cannot be considered as POV pushing as credible RS exist for it. The aforesaid user removed that statement backed by Reliable sources, to which I have no problem as it can be seen in the edit history that I haven't indulged in edit war on Singh's page as I consider Wikipedia to be community driven encyclopedia and not my private property. My concern regardingShreya Ghoshal is that it's status is of a 'Good Article', the persistent POV pushing by the aforesaid user without being backed by the reliable sources would lead to its eventual disqualification of 'Good Article' status. For instance in the 'Artistry' section in Ghoshal's article there is a line which says that 'Ghoshal is noted for wide vocal range's and the source provided is the Saregama website[290], which is not even a news media, it is a audio streaming website and the other source provided is[291], which is not RS. While removing the POV content I have explained in the edit history that the said content which also features in the lead of the article is not backed by reliable source, however the userUser:JabSaiyaan kept on aggressively reverting the edits[292][293][294][295][296] since he appears to be diehard fan of Miss Ghoshal. In order to avoid edit warring, I discontinued editing the page and brought the matter here in good faith with a hope that the concerned administrators would preserve the articles 'GA' status. I would pray for administrative level protection overShreya Ghoshal article in order to preserve its GA status. Thank you.
Reply:- How can you teach me how Wikipedia works when you removed content fromShreya Ghoshal's page by giving vague reasons like "Source do not talk about versatility or vocal range" when the sources clearly talks about that and it's quoted in reference and also sources are "possibly written by a fan" like are you saying fans are writing forThe Recording Academy (Grammy's). The sources from publications likeTimes of India,The Indian Express andThe Hindu are also their along with the several other sources supporting same things or statements but yet you removed the content. Now lets come toArijit Singh, even Forbes article anywhere isn't calling him a "GOAT" so that just ain't supporting the claim, and him having Spotify streams also has no corelation with the claim, the Spotify thing is in fact already mentioned in the page. On the other hand when same Forbes clearly calls Shreya "prolific" and "popular" in their article you conveniently removed that content. You started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists which includes Ghoshal andSonu Nigam when misleading content from Singh's page was removed that says it all. Also about his wife, I was about to revert it myself because when I was searching for source I found that was just a rumour. There's no need for playing moral card because you are now removing a lot of previously added well sourced content about Singh's personal information from his page which is again vandalism and disruptive editing. You could've discussed about it in the talk section if you actually knows how Wikipedia works. Thank you.JabSaiyaan (talk)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[301]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[302]
Comments:
Not technically a 3rr, but he has, despite significant discussion withnetherzone andBinksternet, continued to re-add material to the page and reverting removals of the content he added. has also made some personal attacks. I suggested he use the RfC or Dispute resolution, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. --Aunva6talk -contribs04:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
They have been blocked for personal attacks on other editors. (See their user page). The edit war was has been a slow moving campaign to add content without consensus.Netherzone (talk)13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: requested in two edit summaries
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:here
Comments: This person across several IPs has made repeated attempts (earlier even than the scope of this report) to remove cited content from aWP:RSP about a footballer having an affair, and has made no attempt at discussing it beyond one edit summary. This content has previously beenrestored by other editors and is the consensus version.— ser!(chat to me -see my edits)13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, assomeone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.
Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for theWP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines likeWP:ENDORSE.
(excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25(talk)10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've indeffed BottleofStrawberryMilk for impersonation and blocked the IP range for one week for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk)10:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to add some context to this issue because this user is also known to me but I haven't formally complained about them before. There has been a repeated pattern where BottleOfChocolateMilkselectively removes endorsements or positive material about only left-wing Democratic candidates (such as a Squad member like Summer Lee; or Katie Porter or Barbara Lee in California) while alsoselectively removing negative material only about centrist Democrats opposing them. They were very active removing well-sourced criticism of Adam Schiff, for example that he had been a coauthor and initial cosponsor of SOPA (which this entire site went dark to protest at the time), as "irrelevant" while also removing Lee and Porter's endorsements. I didn't care to litigate it at the time but it was clear this user's behavior was out of line.
They often misinterpret rules (as I read it,WP:ENDORSE doesn't prohibit using a candidate's website to confirm an endorsement also reported by another source) and also lean into technicalities; "irrelevant" here could mean that a particular issue caused a problem for an incumbent candidate in a previous election but there wasn't a specific source describing it as an issue in that election. I would allege straight-up bias in this user's edits: I for one believe in leaving any relevant, well-sourced information in, even if you don't agree with that candidate and I would not similarly delete endorsements from Schiff's section.
Furthermore, they often make changes to articles just before an election, which raises concerns of violating consensus already developed on the article as well as of making untrustworthy changes to influence that election.This edit was made the night before the very contentious PA-12 primary,selectively removing numerous of Summer Lee's endorsements under the false summary "Condensing". This behavior should raise serious concerns about manipulative editing and conflict of interest.76.6.209.95 (talk)07:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Since I was watching a lot of the edit wars I kinda want to comment
There has been a repeated pattern where BottleOfChocolateMilk selectively removes endorsements or positive material about only left-wing Democratic candidates (such as a Squad member like Summer Lee; or Katie Porter or Barbara Lee in California) while also selectively removing negative material only about centrist Democrats opposing them.
I think this is jumping the gun a bit, since I think the issue might be a lot of "left wing Dem" endorsements come from social media platforms such as Twitter, and aren't reliably sourced elsewhere. Though in this case I'd need to see more specific examples to consider it further. Additionally, Wikipedia isn't a both sides platform, and including criticism of a candidate, whether in election pages or on their own, is generally controversial from what I can gather, so I can kind of understand removing criticism of Schiff.
2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
This part of WP:ENDORSE seems very clear that endorsements must come from reliable and independent, i.e. independent of the candidate, sources, which would exclude campaign websites unless said endorsements can be independently sources. So this claim seems quite weak.
This edit was made the night before the very contentious PA-12 primary, selectively removing numerous of Summer Lee's endorsements under the false summary "Condensing".
Additionally, the condensing of the table was removing dozens, several dozens of congressional endorsements and condensing them into a list, with the reference link still present to view. It seems quite bloated to me to include so many congressional endorsements or what-have-you. If the reference is maintained, and the number of endorsements listed, it seems quite acceptable and that not much info is lost.
Lastly I think you might be expressing general bias against the user, you haven't really provided examples to make your case here, so I am not personally convinced.Talthiel (talk)14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh believe me the examples are coming in due course. I don't have time to deal with this right now while this dude apparently has all day to police pages he's edited.
What it "seems" is irrelevant because this individual perpetually refuses to actually engage other users in discussion, just repeatedly does what he thinks is ok and reverts any changes to it.
And my point stands that it is NEVER acceptable to make gratuitous, unnecessary large edits like this the night before an election. Whether or not there is intent, this creates an appearance of impropriety.76.6.209.95 (talk)06:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[307]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[308]
Comments: Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMistamystery (talk •contribs)13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms[309][310], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through bothIP and account[311][312] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[313]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[314], but he uncivilly refused[315].Crampcomes (talk)22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Editor is evading the central issue - which is clear violation of 1RR and complete refusal to self-revert.
Otherwise, all of the above are complete falsehoods. The content removed was POV OR and not remotely supported by any of the sources provided (which is also why *other* editors have removed it as well). Also, I did not in any way violate 1RR (my reverts were almost four days apart), and talk page discussions were initiated as per BRD.
Consensus at AE is developing for a one-week block and six-month TBAN.
BTW, IMO there was noneed to go to AE just because this involves an article in a contentious topic under 1RR; we have handled many other such reports here in the past as many of the regular admins who review reports here are familiar with how CTOPS works.Daniel Case (talk)19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "two editors does not make a consensus. This is clearly an content dispute with a third editor now weighing in by taking a side but also appointing themselves as a faux arbitrator, warning only one party while the other continues to revert. The status quo prior the dispute was that the content was present. I have demonstrated that the content is relevant and sourced so would welcome more eyes on the behaviour here, and if that be ANI, as I have been threatened on my talk page, so be it."
Crowsus reverted my removal of matches that were unrelated to the article topic. I attempted discussion on their talk page, but to no avail. I then started a discussion about the removal on the article talk page to get more opinions, and another editor (Amakuru) agreed that the content was undue for this article. This did not deter Crowsus, who continued to revert, several times with misleading edit summaries saying "per talk", even though they had not achieved consensus for their additions on the talk page. Amakuru posted an edit warring warning on their talk page, but Crowsus has since added their preferred content again.Fred Zepelin (talk)20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, on a procedural point the above list of 5 reverts doesn't contain any 4 within 24 hours, but they've all been within a fairly short span and I think the spirit of the 3RR has been broken even if the letter hasn't. And despite the conversation on the talk page continuing, Crowsus has continued reverting. I would imagine a degree ofWP:ONUS applies here too -"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and there clearly isn't (yet) any sort of consensus for the material to be included. — Amakuru (talk)21:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
[I had written a lot there but there was an edit conflict and a lot of it was lost. I'll try to summarise]
As can be seen on the article talk, I have tried to address Fred's concerns but they are determined to remove this content. I am not trying to add it, it was already present for some time on an article with plenty of traffic and nobody had an issue previously. So it is the continued removal of this content which is disruptive, and it's appropriate to return it to its pre-dispute state of the content being included. That has taken me past the 3RR.
There was justified concern with the sourcing and relevancy of the content, which amounts to two sentences but I have made multiple attempts to address these with demonstrably relevant sources and amendments, which each time are met with obstruction, inaccurate analysis of the sources and, of course, reversion (Fred is also at 5 on that count, but Amakuru chose not to add a warning template to their page, not even when I pointed it out and it was clear that both parties had been reverting the other.
Moreover, neither of them is applying their preferred deletion of this content logically / correctly - there are 3 matches from the years immediately following the match in the article, involving the same teams and the same unusual outcome, but in the haste to simply revert me regardless, only mentions of 2 of the 3 matches were removed. I have pointed out this inconsistency but been ignored. This obviously makes no sense and indicates a failure to pay attention to what I say on the talk, what is in the article or what is in the references I have added. Fred appears to have decided that they will get their way no matter what - it's been me who has made amendments and added sources while they have just quoted policy links at me, even when I have responded appropriately to meet those criteria.
And now they've brought it here because I am reluctant to simply yield to their will having made the effort to improve the article to their satisfaction and to seek wider opinions on the matter via a forum such asWP:FOOTY (where I would have accepted an outcome against my opinion, albeit I maintain hope that enough sensible contributors would agree that one properly sourced sentence on these obviously related matches is appropriate), but it turns out nothing will satisfy them except removing relevant, referenced content from this article (bolstered by the support of one other editor who it appears hasn't been paying attention to the details, or their own edit would have been more accurate), and now sanctioning me for daring to challenge them.Crowsus (talk)21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours, from the article. Yes, two against one is not the most ideal consensus, but it's enough that you should refrain from continuing to restore while that discussion is ongoing. Apart from your edit warring, the other two editors have a point IMO that the mere inclusion of those other matches in an extensive list of comebacks, even if published by UEFA, is not a sufficient connection to that which is the article's subject to overcome SYNTH. And, Crowsus, when in these sort of discussions in the futureplease try to at least use paragraph breaks ... as it is your lengthy disquisitions at best make it hard for an admin reviewing an ANEW report to understand your arguments and at worst come across as a combination ofTEXTWALL andBLUDGEON.Daniel Case (talk)16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion and this is something you volunteer to do so don't complain when people give you something to read. Have you looked at the article talk page? Have you looked at the assessments of the references which are either malicious or incompetent in their inaccuracy? (short enough?)Crowsus (talk)18:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I must be in some kind of parallel universe where only the events of the past can be referred to. If those other matches had occurred in the season prior, they would obviously be referred to in the background of the article, and with good reason. But because they occurred afterwards, it's apparently nonsensical to mention them even in passing, even though multiple reputable publications have done so. It is deeply worrying to me that three apparently sensible people would reach that conclusion. Disgraceful, to be honest. Absolute nonsense that it should be your conclusion. Obviously I will abide with the ban, just to be clear.Crowsus (talk)18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) "this edit is according to the words said by the filmmaker himself. By the way, I want to let Fylindfotberserk know that it's not Teleugu, it is Telugu."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
No effort to engage in Talk page discussion, despite the edits being objected to by different editors. Clearly forewarned of 3RR there, but went ahead and deliberately did just that with a snarkish reply to go along on the Talk page.Gotitbro (talk)19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[322]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[323]
Comments:
User suddenly appeared to the articleGajapati invasion of Bidar, and added information about a military conflict, that happened after the actual conflict, in which the article is actually in scope with. Moreover, user attempted to mix the first conflict with the second conflict, and made synthesis in the infobox. Can clearly see that I am asking them to not engage in edit war, even asked them if they need my assistance in improving the article (see their talk page). User is not being ready for it, and continued their actions.--Imperial[AFCND]10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
They seem to be editing in good faith and trying to add sources, so I'll hold off on blocking for now.@JeffSpaceman: you have also violated 3RR. Please readWP:STATUSQUO more carefully, especially the lineEdit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs)14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed! You will see that I have now added multiple sources.
I was somewhat surparised at the trigger-happy approach of a couple of editors who:
1) Gave lack of citation as the reason for reverting onjust this one definition on the page, whilst ignoring thatall of the other definitions on the page had no citations.
2) If aforesaid editors were not familiar with the usage it would have taken mere moments of searching for them to fill the gap in their knowledge and realise that the edit was genuine.
3) I regret that the device I used for editing had problems which made it somewhat clumsy to provide citations, so I switched to another device on which I could easily fill the gaps that were, aparently, so important for this one definition but unnecessary for all the others on the same page (see above).
I'm afraid that the impression given was not of professional, good faith editing, but of ignorance of language, laziness or unwillingness to resolve that ignorance, and a somewhat 'boy-in-his-bedroom-playing-shoot-em-up-games" of reverting, "because they could".
I'm glad that the final comment (by Ingenuity) to which I've written this reply had a more mature and experienced approach, but the fact that the earlier ones didn't and could invoke such easy overriding power reflects poorly on the standards of Wikipedia.
As an aside, a lecturer that I know at a UK university would set essays for undergraduate students and place a false piece of information in an obvious, related Wikipedia article. When a student submitted a piece of work containing the false information it was used as a example to the class of the unreliability of Wikipedia.
Unless a uniform, high standard of editing on Wikipedia can be reached it will remain limited in its value. (Most colleagues in the academic world think similarly). However Wikipedia's business model does not make such quality control a likely proposition. (Imagine aircraft being assembled and maintaind by volunteers with no requirement to demonstrated professional competance before being allowed to perform maintenance).
In some subjects, including some that I have substantial higher education experience in (mathematics, computer science, hard sciences) the quality tends to be high. In many "biographies" of living people it is often low because Wikipedia is used a free PR for "celebrities" and other public figures and the contributors / controllers of such articles clearly use Wikipedia as a publicity machine.86.160.228.56 (talk)15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I hope your lecturer friend was blocked for vandalism. And I'm afraid I must disagree withIngenuity: you should be blocked for edit-warring - your edits toHorlick are vandalism. If you were a registered editor, I'd indef you asWP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk)15:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I try to give some leeway in cases like this. They've probably never heard of edit warring before, theywere told to not add it without a source, which theythen did, so I wouldn't describe this as vandalism. IP - please take this as a warning to not edit war; it rarely achieves anything and you will be blocked if you continue. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs)15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Jeff should not have told the IP to add sources as disambig entries must point to articles and should not be sourced. However, the fact the IP has possibly never heard of edit-warring (based on their attitude, I kinda doubt it), is irrelevant as they were properly warned before their last revert.--Bbb23 (talk)16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have time to waste when lazy editors like Felida can undo work with a few ego-driven clicks which seem more driven by power-play than any wish to improve Wikipedia, which takes sonsiderably more work and understanding.86.160.228.56 (talk)16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Just one final comment (as you might have missed it on your talk page), even though I really don't have to defend myself against the implication that I don't want to improve Wikipedia: In case you didn't notice, immediately after my last revert, I added a link to the Wiktionary entry (the same one you added as a source) at the top of your page. So, just to be clear, I didn't just revert you without considering your addition; I recognized that pointing to this defintion could be useful (i.e. an improvement) and included this information in a way that's in line with Wikipedia's guidelines (and btw, in this situation, that Wiktionary link at the top is the closest thing you're going to get here). If you really want to improve Wikipedia once your block expires, you need to do so within the boundaries of its policies and guidelines, but I agree thatdoes take considerably more work and understanding than simply adding what you believe should be included, edit warring, and launching personal attacks.Felida97 (talk)17:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages don't tend to need citations because they exist to link to articles that have citations. Your dictionary definition entry doesn't have an article, so if it were to be deemed appropriate to remain on a disambiguation page, it would need it's own citations. As far as your lecturer friend's little vandal test goes, I would hope they and the other 'colleagues in the academic world' would explain how Wikipedia should be used. Wikipedia isn't a source. It never should be. The citations (you know, the ones you didn't feel the need to add at first) are what should be referenced. The rest of your post has nothing to do with your edit warring. --Onorem (talk)15:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Even though I was not the editor that requested sources for you addition (and granted I only raised the following point in my second revert and my message on your talk page), I feel the need to point out that, judging by your argument that"all of the other definitions on the page had no citations", you still seem to misunderstand what the page you're editing is meant for. It is not a page of "definitions" but adisambiguation page with links to Wikipedia articles (this I already pointed to in my first revert). Disambiguation pages specifically shouldnot include dictionary definitions (seeWP:DABDICT andMOS:WTLINK). (While there is the exceptionWP:WORDISSUBJECT, where a word could have its own Wikipedia article, and thus be linked on a disambiguation page, I don't believe this applies here.)Felida97 (talk)15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours. I hoped that I could resolve this with a warning, but the personal attack above is not acceptable. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs)16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[329]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[330]
Comments: This almost could be more of an ANI question, but bringing this here since it deals mostly with edit warring. The above last incident isn't a brightline crossing of 3RR inserting new content in three times instead of four, but there's a underlying combative edit warring issue becoming more apparent in this most recent topic I'm hoping can be addressed here.
I first came across this relatively new account when they violated 1RR over at[331][332]Chlormequat. I alerted them to that on their talk, but it was promptly deleted with no response.[333] About a month later, they were warned for behavior at a BLP, which they reverted saying it was nonsense.[334]
Come to their editing today at Nicola Sturgeon. After the reverts,Czello warned them about 3RR, which as again promptly deleted.[335] The escalation here though is EpicAdventurer then went to Czello's page sayingDon't post nonsense on my talk page again. You were the one who started reverting and you should have opened a discussion the first time.[336] when theWP:ONUS was instead on EpicAdventurer and they kept inserting content that appears to haveWP:BLP issues about the subject being a "secret lesbian" based on the talk page. If it were just the Sturgeon edits in isolation, I probably would have left it be seeing as they stopped, but the previous history and the comments at Czello's page show an editor not wanting tohear about behavior issues related to edit warring that are quickly dismissed. There's a combativeness in their responses to almost any editor dealing with this and pushing reverts as far as they can it seems even though 3RR doesn't mean you have permission to revert up to that many times. I opened this hoping admins might get a little more traction getting across to EpicAdventurer now rather than it escalating in future articles considering how addressing the issues at their talk page seems to be an exhausted option when it always results in a response of addressing their behavior asnonsense. Thanks.KoA (talk)20:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "I saw you said that metacritic said generally favorable but if I'm correct, Rotten Tomatos gets the percentage of reviews from crictics all across the world and ratios them to postitive versus negative reviews and the same thing you did to last of us."
21:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "I don't understand go and look at the last of us. Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting informatio"
21:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "Ok can you do me a favor because I don't want to manual input every critic source but if you go to rotten tomatos there is a see full review feature so click on that and source render it and put it in Critical response also it is 93% that is not generally positive."
19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "They are in Reception or more specifically Critical response. Please take a look at other projects as last of us is at a 96% while fallout is at a 93%. Both were met with critical acclaim. As projects like those are impressive to make while being very good."
19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) "The sources have already be referenced and I read them also look at The last of us and look at this one."
I'm INVOLVED, so coming to the notice board. User is at 5-6 reverts currently against multiple editors and a previously diffused edit war (with talk page) from a few weeks ago. User was pinged to that discussion and made another revert against that consensus afterwards. --ferret (talk)22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined Complaining about potential bias in the article isnot "expressing [their] feelings", it's well within the scope of the quoted talk page guidelines. They should have been engaged on this or left alone; either option would have avoided an edit war. As it is, reverting constantly on dubious grounds gives him the basis for at least a superficial claim to be right when he says he's being censored.Daniel Case (talk)18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
In this caseit's arguable to me that, even though you may not have consciously been trying, you provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this. Not when they were well within their rights ... in fact, he'd be on better ground reportingyou for repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit.
User:Daniel Case I'm well aware ofWP:3RRNO, no exception was cited and none applied, and if you believe otherwise please state which one and why. Saying that I provoked someone without a diff link is anWP:ASPERSION, I never once even editedTalk:Arvind Kejriwal to revert or otherwise, please strike or substantiate with a diff. Finally I thinkUser:EvergreenFir would be quite surprised to hear that called a legitimate edit, but the thing is it doesn't matter. Being right does not excuse violatingWP:3RR as you well know and that is rock-bottom policy. If you want to citeWP:IAR, then cite IAR but don't cloak it in something else, and don't accuse people of baiting without evidence.2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (talk)18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Nowyou're the one casting aspersions. I gave you the out that you might not have been aware that could happen. Sometimes no direct action is necessary to provoke someone ... if it were, we'd probably live in a generally better world. Accept that you're not perfect and that you, like everyone else, can upset people without meaning to or being aware that you did.
But, no, you have reacted as if I unambiguously accused you of willfully provoking him, and the vehemence of your reaction now makes me wonder if you indeedwere trying to get them to edit war ... I mean, maybe, justmaybe, you or someone else could have responded to their responses on their talk page asking for specifics about what policy they had fallen afoul of (besidesWP:TALK#POSITIVE, which is stated as a "should", not a must, and seems to me to have been a stretch here). Or, more to the point, what specific instances of bias they could point to. You'd be surprised, I would imagine, how often that works to cool things down.Daniel Case (talk)19:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the situation has led to a block on different grounds, and as I said below that makes most of our discussion moot, I certainly will (It would be nice if you did too, though).Daniel Case (talk)20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, how about you insert a note clarifying that other editors, not you, made the reverts?
I apologize for the confusion whereby I thought you had been the one making the reverts, as very often that's how things work out in reports here.Daniel Case (talk)20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have mentioned that on multiple occaisons, first one diff linked below already, what is so hard about striking "he'd be on better ground reporting you for repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit." and "You provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this" both of which are false.2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk)20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Not attempting to be difficult, condescending or snarky here, but as true genuine well-intentioned advice, please slow down. If you are going so fast on these you are losing track of who is who in a discussion, you really need to recalibrate, there is rarely a level of urgency that requires action without sortinhg things out in your head at least a little.2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk)21:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Addendum. It seems the user isAlready blocked for a period of72 hours, without talk page access, byEvergreenFir for the incivility andbattleground mentality they displayed when, in fact, engaged on the issues I touched on above. Fine; I have no quarrel with this block. Had Iknown about it, had it beenmentioned in the report above, I would have blocked and we would not have needed to have this discussion.
Nonetheless, my point still stands: Just because someone doesn't come to a talk page with a positive attitude to the article does not give you the right to revert away. An unspecific accusation of bias is still a legitimate subject for talk page discussion, although I admit that for them to demand you apologize before they give you answers is abit presumptuous. And their attitude to EvergreenFir post-block entirely justifies revoking talk page access.Daniel Case (talk)19:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I checked the linked diffs and found them, by themselves, an insufficient basis for a block (and if that had been all there was to it, I still would). You took exception in what I considered to be an unduly confrontational tone, suggesting to me thatyou had been the one to make the reverts and then come here, as often happens; it's not unusual for reporters to not take it well when the report gets declined (and I grant that here I did make a onetime exception to 3RR, so yes, some explanation was needed).Daniel Case (talk)21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Well then maybe we are starting to get on the same page now. I don'tmind declined reports. But if someone violates a brightline, asWP:3RR is, then there should be an accompanying explanation, even if only "perWP:IAR", I do not seethis as even remotely confrontational, that tone shift only happened later, it was IMO a very gentle request for you to clarify your decision making underWP:ADMINACCT, and I would hope that if this occurs in the future that you will respond with more deliberationthan happened this time.2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E (talk)21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, if wehadn't been going back and forth here,maybe someone (not necessarily you) could have added information about the block.Daniel Case (talk)20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
With a day's reflection and review, I have considered that I took umbrage at what I considered to be (and still would) the wrong reason to revert someone's talk page comments, and did not review them when you challenged me on why I declined the report so that I would have realized you were not taking responsibility for the actions of others. I acted rashly, negligently made some accusations against you that were properly directed at others, and caused needless drama, which did not become any less needless when the reported IP was blocked for his incivility andtendentiousness.
I therefore invite you,2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:94AE:92D3:8121:F39E, totrout me here (as you would not be able to do it at my talk page since I semi-protected it a long time ago). I will also be suspending myself from reviewing reports here for a few days and requiring myself to do something boring and tedious yet utterly necessary and requiring the administrative bit in its stead (ProbablyMITC ... haven't done that for a long time, and there's a backlog).Daniel Case (talk)02:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Daniel Case consider yourself trouted. As far as slip-ups go it was one with relatively minor consequence. I have a pretty thick skin and this is not by a long-shot the most outlandish set of accusations thrown my way. I don't think you necessarily need to take a break here, just make a little mental note to slow down the next time, and I have made mistakes from going to fast myself.
The irony is that I deliberately chose to report here as opposed to AIV or ANI because the rest of the situation was a bit muddy, while violations of 3RR are unambiguous. I was hoping to get them to do some reading so they would self-revert or refactor as the case for outright removal was not entirely clear, and once a 4th revert was made, requesting a short-duration page block expressly made for that sole reason seemed like the best way to end disruption without dissecting whether the edit was legitimate or not. Obviously that did not go as planned, but that's Wikipedia for ya.
Page: Suzette Kent User being reported: User:AusLondonder
Comments: Investigating a proposed deletion of an article, I checked this users talk page, it seems to be have a number of warnings about disruptive editing. I've responded both on their talk page, and in the article's talk page.
I don't participate much in this sort of debate, but I certainly can't see any basis for the proposal to delete the article.
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.Bbb23 (talk)23:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Burt Harris: I've already declined this as malformed, but now that I look more closely at it, what on earth does your complaint have to do with edit-warring?--Bbb23 (talk)23:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a truly shocking abuse of processBurt Harris. Not only did you ignore the very clear direction to notify me of this report, but you've literally made up an allegation of edit-warring with absolutely no basis whatsoever. I have made ONE edit to the page in question. I was expecting you to be a new editor given this shambolic behaviour, but 18 years? Seriously? The "disruptive editing" you refer toat my talkpage was normal in process deletion nominations objected to be a creator. You should be sanctioned for this blatantly unacceptable behaviour.AusLondonder (talk)11:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "You know the funniest and unfortunately saddest thing about this article? What is not said in the entire article about the environment and what is the definition is confusing the readers. In my opinion, it would be better to delete the entire article. When I read everything that is written, I cannot understand what "cult classic" means. Everything is so vague that the reader is confused, because he does not know what it is. Set a guideline so that the reader is not confused."
05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "And then you are independent HAHA. Tell that to someone else, what an American tells you is the way it is HaHA"
04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "Film politics Hollywood and others would protest, thinking that what I wrote was against them, so maybe there were lawsuits on wikipedia, so I understand you. You are free to return, I understand, I will not edit you again. Greetings"
04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "I agree with you that there should be a source, but there is no source in this sentence either. I just wanted to simplify the sentence so that readers can understand it better."
04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) "What I wrote wrong, look at all those that belong to "cult films" have a low rating on imbd or other and someone who likes the film does not agree with that. I don't think I wrote anything wrong."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[351]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[352]
Comments: User insists a band is primarily metalcore despite having been shown proof to the contrary. They are unconstructively reverting my edits and vandalising the website in the process. They need to be blocked from editing.
Page protected for 3 days.Aoidh (talk)09:23, 8 April 2024 (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. –EdJohnston (talk)21:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursRegentsPark(comment)17:17, 9 April 2024 (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 is also getting a little stale right now, although I would agree there are issues here. But they are beyond the scope of this noticeboard to resolve.Daniel Case (talk)18:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)08:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: The closing administrator may be interested in the result ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Sri Lanka motion, independently of how this specific request here is closed.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much!~ ToBeFree (talk)23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Warned given thatGrizi fu has agreed to"calm down and accept the other position", I don't think further action is required at this point. I urge all parties to continue the discussion atTalk:Deng Xiaoping and look for compromises / find consensus for the way forward. However, there was a clearWP:3RR breach here, so Grizi fu you need to stop reverting now and concentrate on dialogue. Further edit warring will be met with a block. — Amakuru (talk)13:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated but have put indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the article. (Neither account named in the sock case is extended-confirmed). Arbcom hasjust designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, though the templates for enacting those sanctions aren't set up yet. Let me know if this dispute spreads out to more articles.EdJohnston (talk)03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Done Didn't notice until you pointed it out. – Muboshgu (talk)23:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)