Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:Spshu reported by User:King Crimson the Third (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Template:Film Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893066021 by Spshu (talk" "you started it, you have been direct to the talk page"
  2. 19:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893065941 by Spshu (talk)" ←That is King Crimson the Third's edit not mine
  3. 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893055911 by Spshu (talk)" "againt not all prod.co. not lo be listed, discussion has been started on talk page"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

  • The dispute may have been going since mid-March. If you check the edit history, you will probably see more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    EdJohnston, Per your message, I've had a look and there's been a dispute for over a year with Spshu posting on the talk page a while back. The article has been fully protected on multiple occasions since that post. Please also see User Talk:Spshu for discussion regarding how to handle disputes very recently including advising not continuing revrting without getting another editor's opinion, going to a talk page or contacting an admin noticeboard RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

And you can see multiple edit summaries directing KC the 3 to the talk page. Spshu (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, this could be closed with no action unless User:King Crimson the Third makes a further appearance and explains what this is all about. Both parties could have been making better use of the talk page, but the supplied diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If there is actually a long-term edit war, somebody needs to explain what it is. Spshu's post above isn't very clear. It seems this template has been protected many times in the past; can anyone say why? The protecting admins have included User:Dlohcierekim and User:Abecedare. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that the slow edit-warring, dating back to Feb 21, is over the inclusion standard for studios in the template (see my note at RFPP accompanying the most-recent full protection). I agree that 3RR has not been technically breached, so a block may not be justified at the moment. I propose that both the editors be warned that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks even if the 3RR redline is not crossed. In the meantime, I'll drop a note at WT:FILM asking for some extra voices to weigh in on the ontent dispute itself. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the pointer. The phrase from Spshu in the last RFPP was "repeated mass dumping of production companies and random status changes, while the other editor ignores talk page discussion." I wouldn't say the talk page discussion was very clear, but at least Spshu was attempting it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors are warned for slow edit warring on the Template:Film Studio. Though User:Spshu at least made an attempt to discuss, the next person who reverts the template is risking a block, unless they have first obtained consensus at the talk page or at WT:FILM. Thanks to User:Abecedare for opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Edit-warring at Template:Film Studio. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:GoLatvia (Result: Warned Nominator blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2019 Israeli legislative election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:51, 17 April 2019
  2. 15:33, 18 April 2019
  3. 15:40, 18 April 2019
  4. 21:49, 18 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The attempt to resolve the dispute was on my user talk page

Comments:
We had a discussion on my talk page, which user:Number 57 basically made the arguments that the description that I proposed adding is "not necessary" because it does not exist on other articles about Israeli elections. In spite of the warning, user performed another revert. GoLatvia (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, as is clear from the dates/times on the above diffs, I haven't broken 3RR. Secondly, as can be seen in the edit summaries of the last three diffs and my comment on their userpage, I have repeatedly requested that GoLatvia respects WP:BRD and stop adding this text to the results table (which they've done six times now, five of which have been reverting it back in: [3][4][5][6][7][8]) until they gain consensus for the change. Number 57 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I am this close to blocking both of you for how lame this edit war is. Seriously, you know better. 3RR was not technically breached, but it's close. Anyway, you've both been productive editors with respect to this article — find a way to get along again. I am not going to protect this article, but I expect you both to work toward finding consensus on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I assume restarting reverting with no consensus gained for the edit is going to result in a block? Number 57 06:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
You assume correctly. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 06:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks. Am I able to restore the pre-edit war version, or will you? As this editor has done nothing but edit war over this for the last three days, blocking them for 24 hours won't actually achieve anything unless their revert is reverted. Cheers, Number 57 07:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
No one's restoring anything. Find out what the consensus is on the article talk page, where your absence has been noticed. El_C 07:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Your final comment is unfair: I didn't comment on the talk page discussion because it was clear from GoLatvia's wording that they were seeking other opinions – my views were already written out (as they had copied the comments from their talk page where I stated my view), so I didn't think I needed to restate them. Also, what's the point in blocking them for 24 hours if the edit is going to remain in place. That's all they're interested in doing at the moment, so as long as they've got their way, they won't be wanting to edit anyway. Number 57 07:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. The point is they are blocked form editing any article for 24 hours, while you are not. As mentioned to the user, I suggest you two consider pursuing other forms of dispute resolution — which you are free to begin immediately. El_C 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The wrong version might be up right now — but allowing you to revert back to the version before it is not something I think is productive. El_C 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthPark1417 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 72 hours, both)[edit]

Page
Jersey Beat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
NorthPark1417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine, discuss on the talk page"
  2. 07:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
  3. 07:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, linking in navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
  4. 07:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following WP:BRD, discuss on talk page"
  5. 07:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Navigational boxes are for links. Discuss at talk page before changing"
  6. 06:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Ownership of articles on Jersey Beat. (TW)"
  2. 07:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */ R"
  3. 07:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jersey Beat. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Resolution sought on the WP:OWNer's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 08:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear neither WP:BRD nor WP:OVERLINK are valid exemptions from WP:3RR. El_C 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Walter Görlitz again? Seriously, he has been waging these small edit-wars for years and years with a hell of a lot of other users. When ever anyone complains at his talk page, he just deletes what people wrote on it and goes to war with them. Three days ban isn't long enough, sorry I think a much harsher punishment is warranted for the accumulation of transgressions. Govvy (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It's been two years since the last block, so I erred on the side of leniency. I'm not privy to anything beyond what's listed on this report and the block log. Certainly, if there's been other issues that extend beyond those, feel free to compile an AN/I report and list these there. El_C 18:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Even though it's been two years, the user has a history of WP:3RR violations. Their user page also presents a situation as well as it discusses bias with 3RR (from six months ago as well). – The Grid (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RatsnakeVS reported by User:FireworkPowder (Result: 72 hours, both)[edit]

Page
2019-20 EFL Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RatsnakeVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893205594 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) to 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893205470 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
    2. 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893205452 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 19:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC) to 19:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893205291 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
    2. 19:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893205172 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
  4. 19:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893204765 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
  5. 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893204798 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) What are you doing? For the last time, I added a source"
  6. 19:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893204139 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) I did source it."
  7. 19:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893203099 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) It's common sense, but I added a source"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The edit warring IP, that is — not FireworkPowder. El_C 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SovalValtos, User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Jack1985IE (Result: protected)[edit]

Page
Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SovalValtos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 19:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893127961 by SovalValtos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), SovalValtos, listing is as per WP:CRYSTAL does not apply if it's properly sourced. If you want to continue to revert, I'd recommend you edit the 1000's of airport pages with listed, referenced new routes."
  2. 01:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893087212 by Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), You have already caused this page to be locked. And despite numerous warnings which you continue to ignore, I've had no choice but to report your vandalism."
Comments:

This issue is now continuing for a few weeks, both have had repeated warnings including a page protection being enacted subsequently expired and have both reverted to the same edit warning, all information is sourced. Jack1985IE (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. It's only been a week — really? Protected for one week, again. But that's it, any issues from now on will be met with blocks. No more nonsense. El_C 20:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Shame the reporter chose to report here, rather than engage on the talk page per accepted WP practice, where the two reported editors left comments some months ago that could have been discussed amicably and, if not resolved, taken to arbitration. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The only edit warring here is by the reporter, who keeps putting back unencyclopedic content which fails several WP policies, and is now trying to imtimidate the rest of us with tendentious reports.Charles (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JPratas reported by User:177.98.174.159 (Result: 2 weeks, 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Fascism in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JPratas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:44, 17 April 2019
  2. 14:25, 17 April 2019
  3. 14:50, 17 April 2019
  4. 14:54, 17 April 2019
  5. 18:28, 17 April 2019
  6. 19:07, 17 April 2019
  7. 23:48, 17 April 2019
  8. 13:52, 18 April 2019
  9. 15:14, 18 April 2019
  10. 15:28, 18 April 2019
  11. 15:46, 18 April 2019
  12. 16:03, 18 April 2019
  13. 19:52, 18 April 2019
  14. 21:53, 18 April 2019
  15. 10:43, 19 April 2019
  16. 11:46, 19 April 2019
  17. 12:39, 19 April 2019
  18. 18:13, 19 April 2019
  19. 20:45, 19 April 2019
Comments:

 Administrator note: JPratas blocked for 2 weeks. Ec1801011 blocked for 24 hours. El_C 23:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Riza tbzli reported by User:Migboy123 (Result: 72 hours, both)[edit]

Page: Tractor Sazi F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Riza tbzli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [ 02:08, 19 April 2019‎ Migboy123 (Iranian Azerbaijani and Caucasian Azerbaijani are different and so are their scripts. So I changed it.)]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [ 06:35, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893108926 by Migboy123) ]
  2. [ 06:35, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893108598 by Migboy123)]
  3. [ 22:51, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893141204 by 188.158.75.222 )]
  4. [ 22:52, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893141147 by 188.158.75.222)]
  5. [ 22:53, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (He did not comment)]
  6. [ 06:12, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893258677 by Migboy123)]
  7. [ 07:32, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893274399 by Migboy123)]
  8. [ 07:39, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893276897 by Migboy123)]
  9. [ 07:48, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893277867 by Migboy123)]
  10. [ 07:48, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (He did not comment)]
  11. [ 08:07, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893278419 by Migboy123)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tractor_Sazi_F.C.

Comments:

Hello, I have written in the talk section my issue and reason for changing some things in this article. I will repeat them again here. 1. Caucasian Azerbaijani and Iranian Azerbaijani are different and so are their respective scripts, Caucasian Azerbaijanis use the Latin script while we Iranian Azerbaijanis use the Iranian script, therefore if we want to add the name of this team we must add it with the correct script and we must make it clear that it is in Iranian Azerbaijani and not Caucasian Azerbaijani. 2. There is no reason to add a "Turkish" name for this team because this team doesn't have any link to Turkey nor is it based in Turkey, there is no reason to add this other than politicization mentioned in the talk page by others. 3. I and a few others have raised our concern over the supposed "nickname" of this team being the "Red Wolves", as a person from Ardabil, which is in the Iranian Azerbaijan province of Iran, have never heard this name being used by fans, players, coaches and the domestic national media. However, it has been used by Pan-Turk organisations as a failing attempt to politicize this team. There is no relation between a tractor and a wolf other than politicization. I searched for domestic sources to find proof for this nickname but it was non-existent. Therefore, I raised my concern in the talk page and later edited the article. 4. There were also a statement regarding the fans saying "Ebi yokh" (it means "don't worry" in Iranian Azerbaijani)whenever the team concedes a goal, there was no citation, it had said citation needed for quite a long time as well, nor evidence I could find to back up this statement so I removed it and clearly wrote in the talk page that I have removed it until someone finds evidence. Riza Tbzli has refused to talk on the talk page, respond to a message I left on his profile and has refused to leave a comment on the edits to justify why he is doing this. This individual goes as far as attempting to impersonate that he is an Iranian Azerbaijani, but he is not and he is from Turkey. This seems like a rather loud statement I'm making but the reason I speculate this is because in Iranian Azerbaijani we call a sports club "kelub" while in Turkish they say "Spor", on his profile page he says "Traktörspor" which is the Turkish translation for the team's name. Thank you Migboy123 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The way to approach this was not to revert war with the user, but bring these issues to a wider audience. El_C 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Abh9850 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: one week)[edit]

Page: Andronovo culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abh9850 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. There are too many diffs to link from the two articles (esp the first) he is waging his edit war, have a look yourself [10] [11] Also, the user Quitenot is obviously a sockpuppet of his. Various users have reverted him, yet he still continues.
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Sock blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:46.40.74.175 reported by User:Mdaniels5757 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
46.40.74.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893336598 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
  2. 17:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893336480 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
  3. 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893336372 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
  4. 17:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893336258 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
  5. 17:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893336040 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
  6. 17:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893335622 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova. (TW)"
  2. 17:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bulgarian lion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also edit-warred on Bulgarian lion. Other participant banned for 72hrs by User:Favonian for block evasion. Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time reporting edit warring. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

3RR broken by User:CordialGreenery[edit]

User:CordialGreenery who just twice within 3 days in February was blocked for breaking the 3RR by User:Doug Weller has not learned his lessons and is edit warring and has broken the 3RR on the article 'The Gulag Archipelago'.

Yesterday he made a recent edit which I felt was a pointless one and I reverted it. Since then CordialGreenery has been trying to edit war his recent insertions into the article. I warned him on his talk page and then he subsequently broke the 3RR. He deleted my warning and called it "spam" so he cannot profess not to have seen it.

The 5 edits within the last 24 hours are 1 2 3 4 5 116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:116.90.229.186 reported by User:CordialGreenery (Result: )[edit]

Page: The Gulag Archipelago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.90.229.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Anon user refusing to participate in talk, reverting constructive edits and ignoring consensus CordialGreenery (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


This report is in retaliation for my report above. If you look at Talk:The Gulag Archipelago you will see I am very clearly participating, in fact I have left multiple comments there. As for "consensus", Cordial Greenery has none for his recent edits. I challenge CordialGreenery to provide such evidence. I await patiently.116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This report was made one minute after yours and was much more thorough. I took my time making it in order to be constructive. I'm not that fast. Don't give me too much credit. CordialGreenery (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:ConcernedCitizenUSA reported by User:El_C (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:49, 20 April 2019
  2. 21:53, 20 April 2019
  3. 22:17, 20 April 2019
  4. 22:19, 20 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:26, 20 April 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:42, 20 April 2019

Comments:

Gave the user the chance to self-revert, but they declined (22:52, 20 April 2019). El_C 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)



You have accused me of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false. Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides" nor was I "one sided". Everything I added was neutral and factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. It's laughable because the remainder of the article is very much "one sided" and full of misleading information cherry picked from the Cook study.

Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which covers the scientific consensus and controversy.

Furthermore, your statement that I undid another editor's work is false. I have not undone anyone else's work. I simply added a completely new section. So in fact, YOU have undone my work several times now in violation of Wiki rules. Please stop doing that!

Your accusation that I have violated Wiki rules regarding an "edit war" is also false. This is very Orwellian, because you have not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why additions from other author may be reverted. You have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why you reverted my additions. So in fact, you are violating Wiki rules regarding editing the work of others.

I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with ADDITIONS to articles rather than summarily reverting changes.

ConcernedCitizenUSA 8:06 PM (PST) April 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talkcontribs)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear-cut edit-warring - you don't get a pass for asserting that you're right. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Epf2018 reported by User:Kwamikagami for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags under discussion (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: People of New Guinea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epf2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

Not sure this is the right place for notification. This isn't a 3RR violation. Rather, in reverting to the version of the article that he prefers, Epf2018 is intentionally deleting the OR, merge, cn and content fork tags that I added to the article and another editor (Diannaa) provided some attribution for. (E.g., on the talk page, Epf2018 said a tag 'was an unwarranted one and only you decided to add it.' I wrongly called this 'vandalism' in my edit summary, when it's merely disruptive.) He did that twice after I twice told him not to, the second time after I threatened to take him to ANI if he did it again. So, here I am at ANI.

There has been a degree of accommodation: I went from redirecting the article to Melanesians, as the other user in the discussion, Austronesier, also prefers (what Epf2018 calls "blanking"), to editing out OR and bullshit (which was the majority of the content) and tagging much of what remained as a content fork. Epf2018 on his part deleted a completely OR section that I had also deleted, to accommodate me, though this section also contradicted his own POV (that there's a racial divide in New Guinea that follows a linguistic division, even though this is contradicted by the very sources he cites). The rest of the content dispute we should be able to handle with RfC's and the like, but the deletion of maintenance tags just because Epf2018 doesn't agree with them is not acceptable. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This user has been making highly disruptive edits, making vulgar, insulting comments and personal attacks in his edit summaries ([22] [23] [24] [25]) and insulting and hostile discussion on the relevant talk page (see [26] [27] [28]), and has been repeatedly moving the article to a new title without properly consulting all of the other editors. I have only reverted the article to its original format prior to this user's page moves and redirections. The maintenance tag was added without a valid explanation, so I'm not sure why it was included. In any case, the threatening, uncooperative and aggressive behaviour of Kwamikagami has not allowed for any form of consensus, so how can I deal with the issue? Epf2018 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where I've made personal attacks, unless you consider me pointing out that you don't appear to understand your own sources to be a "personal attack". Or vulgar, unless you consider the word "bullshit" to be vulgar -- but then, it is what it is. Edit conflict: it appears to be the word 'bullshit' that you take to be a personal attack. But it's not. Much of the article *is* bullshit. When Fareed Zakaria talks about Trump's "bullshit", he isn't being vulgar, he's just stating the facts. And in any case, as you say, you didn't write it, so how is it 'personal'?
BTW, the closest to consensus we have is to delete the article and rd it to 'Melanesians'. I'm willing to accommodate you on a separate article if it isn't nonsense, and I suspect Austronesier would be willing to too, but when you don't understand your own sources and insist on restoring (let's call it 'nonsense' to be polite), it's difficult to come to an acceptable compromise.
In any case, the fact that you don't know how to "deal with the issue" is not reason to delete the merge, OR, cn and content-fork tags, esp. when one other editor agreed on the merge and another agreed on the content fork. The cn tags for OR go without saying. You could solve that by providing refs. Oh, and not deleting refs that contradict your POV would be nice. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are highly aggressive and uncooperative, you refer to the other editors in derogatory terms, you use foul language as a poor excuse for an edit summary, you don't give any consideration of the points made by other editors who disagree with you, and you are clearly not acting in good faith. You go ahead right here to claim I don't understand the studies I actually use and reference, almost verbatim. I have explained, in incredible amount of detail, the findings of the studies and presented enormous evidence. You have not presented ANY evidence or sources to back up your edits, and just make silly, childish attacks and repeat nonsensical comments without even reading another user's arguments. There was no support or validation for the maintenance tags. There is no original research. Everything stated in the article is cited by valid, academic sources. The article is also distinct from Melanesians in its content and purpose. You are ridiculously claiming that the findings and information from valid studies are "nonsense". Just because you find it to be nonsense, because of your personal ideological perspective, is irrelevant. Seriously, did you even read the studies? Every one makes the clear point of the major cultural, historical, geographic and linguistic differences between Austronesian and Papuan groups in Melanesia, which they then find also exist modestly in genetics as well. How can you not grasp this? Are you denying this? If so, where's YOUR evidence contradicting these facts stated by the studies themselves?? Every ref used in the article supports what I entered, since everything I entered is taken from those studies. You have admittedly stated you have no interest in consensus, and thus continue your unacceptable behaviour. At least an administrator will now be made aware. Epf2018 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Your own sources are my evidence. You prove my point for me. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected by SlimVirgin. @Kwamikagami: Next time you file a report in this forum, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Could you leave in the tags (2 users want the article merged, but the merge tag is gone, a 3rd user notes the content fork, but the CF tag is gone, 2 sections are blatant OR, but the OR tag is gone, and all the cn tags are gone) or at least restore the pre-EW version, rather than locking in epf's version? They only "compromised" on the section that contradicted their POV. — kwami (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources I use, the studies themselves, do not support your position. As for OR, there is no OR in the article, as everything is taken from the content of the studies, which clearly differentiate between Papuan and Austronesian groups in Melanesia, and discuss their cultural, historical, linguistic and geographic differences, before also discussing their genetic differences. Epf2018 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:39.42.60.142 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
39.42.60.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893416980 by General Ization (talk) revert rollback abuser as usual, see consensus on talk"
  2. 05:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893416016 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page and user talk page of this user"
  3. 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893415234 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page"
  4. 05:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891903951 by 89.72.59.22 (talk) see talk page and stop reinserting this without very reliable sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [29]
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Since edit warring continued between two other users, I have fully protected the page for 4 days. El_C 07:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Qasee1230 reported by User:Argumentdebate (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qasee1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: I think the edit war is understandably futile to discuss and it appears to be more akin to vandalism. The discussion of the Civil War is more pointless considering the riots between the Sinhalese and Moors that have taken place more recently and deserve more attention, yet this user refuses to allow reputable sources to be used...

  • I blocked both of these for 31 hours for racist harassment. Qasee had this to offer in retaliation for this racist gem by "Argument". I'm about to look a bit closer to see if Argument shouldn't be just blocked indefinitely (and they seem to lack competence as well). Drmies (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: I don't think it's competence they lack so much as an inability to restrain their POV-pushing. Admittedly, the effect is much the same... ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
SN#, I was thinking of certain syntactical things inside that edit they were fighting over. Mind you, I have not looked carefully at the edit warring, and who's worse than who. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Argumentdebate 'wins' the number of reverts over a single issue since several people were reverting them. But Qasee1230 'wins' overall since they were reverting quite a few things, many of which were unhelpful but not really vandalism or otherwise 3RR exempt although it depends how you count these as it's likely some could theoretically be combined. There's also an IP who has well exceeded 3RR although to their credit challenged the racist comments simply by asking people to avoid racism Special:Contributions/71.218.108.117. I've only just warned them [30] Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: do you find it as suspicious as I do that about 14 minutes after you blocked Argumentdebate, User:Athiestsupporter is registered and starts arguing for the inclusion of the same material Argumentdebate was edit warring over [31] [32]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the user but I am not actually the user. You can do an IP check on me if you want. I will state that the people removing the edits under the claim of Islamophobia aren't actually local Muslims - they appear to be mostly foriegn with one from Pakistan. The religious landscape of Sri Lanka is far more tolerant and it may not be considered Islamophobic by local Muslims to post the content - it's worse that the conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese is brought up when that is not a non-existant conflict, and I am sure that the Muslims would agree that the conflict is far lesser than the one between Sinhalese and Muslims, but of course all the editors here claiming to fight Islamophobia aren't even from Sri Lanka... Athiestsupporter (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)