Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:13, 8 February 2022 editAlalch E. (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers29,933 edits →User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: ): Clarify← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:51, 8 February 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,143 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive447) (botNext edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->		NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2022 Winter Olympics}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|CurryCity}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#
	#
	#
	# (revert of )
	#
	#

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

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

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	User is also edit warring over the same content at ] and are over 3rr there as well and they were also warned there before getting to four ]. User has also been informed of discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area Uyghur genocide . User seems well are of 3rr, see their comment at ] "3rr gets everyone sometimes it seems." . If more is required or any questions are had give me a ping, but I think this should be more than enough. ] (]) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

	There are also pretty clear indicators of ] here, e.g.
	* that within 17 hours was a not a revert because of a minor variation in the parameters of the reinserted template (just )
	* Obfuscatory ] arguments ("If you are saying removing is revert, adding is also revert, that just makes everything into reverts???" , "in substance it wasn't a revert, because your reason for reverting me was false" )
	Regards, ] (]) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

	My edits were consistent with show of '''good faith''', completely omitted from Horse Eye's Back's version of events:
	: Diff 1: Not only were there 3 editors vs HorseEB on that issue in ], I pinged HorseEB () on 01:25, 2 February 2022, waited 24h to write my position after inputs from Xoltered and HiLo48 (), before making my edit on 20:28, 3 February 2022‎ (Diff 1), almost 30h after pinging, a duration that took into consideration HorseEB's active hours.
	: Diff 2: Right after this, I made a consecutive edit () incorporating HorseEB's input, showing willingness to compromise. In essence, I had reverted part of my own edit as well.
	: Diff 3: I had no idea who was, who had never engaged in our discussion section on this issue before, and gave no actual reason for reverting my already modified edit '''incorporating''' HorseEB's input.

	Horse Eye's Back's lumping everything together obfuscates what was going on:
	: Diff 4: Tagging is used to hint that the reader should be aware of certain things. It is atrocious to lump this together with the editing of content. Also notice that nothing else was touched by me. Diff 4 was not a reversion at all.
	: Diff 5: I added material from source without changing previous meaning, and some copyediting, so that the text about Qi Fabao is supported by the source. I was going to add a more reliable as well before getting sidetracked by HorseEB. It's a BLP matter for the most part, and again not a reversion of anything before.
	: Diff 6: I added the wording of "allegation" from the ; this point had never been raised by other editors. <del>Again, not a reversion.</del> (in retrospect that might have been a revert ] (]) 08:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC))

	Discussion about HaeB and Horse Eye's Back:
	: Tagging has been discussed above already. As for the template describing a reversion that wasn't, it was ] and ]. HaeB bringing up something they already understand serves no purpose. I would also like to bring up HaeB's misleading ({{tq\|"deleting the link here"}}) while reverting, even though what they chose to revert had not removed any links. To accomodate HaeB's point of {{tq\|"Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref"}}, I added ? to the tag, because despite HaeB's perspective, there was no consensus on that, and not hinting at an active debate would be misleading to readers. However, despite multiple explanations such as {{tq\|"It's a different param with ? to indicate ongoing discussion in Talk instead of surety"}} and {{tq\|"I changed to without surety"}}, they ignore all reasoning and only care to talk about something else {{tq\|("from "reason{{=}}see Talk" to "reason{{=}}ongoing debate in Talk") that's not even visible to almost any readers"}}. The overall impression I have is that neither HaeB nor HorseEB cares about discussing editing objectively, factually, and fairly; especially HorseEB, whose priority appears to include labeling editors with 'edit war' and spamming it: {{tq\|"Its. Still. Edit. Warring."}} and {{tq\|"Its still a revert of HaeB's edit"}} and {{tq\|"It would still be edit warring regardless of what edits follow it"}} and {{tq\|"Why wait? It would still be edit warring}} and {{tq\|"even with the amendment its still edit warring"}}, most of this occuring in a Talk section titled ] while I was still amending edits: {{tq\|"You can't wait minutes for someone to finish editing before accusing them of edit warring?"}}. In a final ], HorseEB wrote {{tq\|"Be specific, what exactly is this wikivoice statement and why do you say that it unsupported by sources?"}}, even though they were the one that had opened the section with {{tq\|"Can you explain how "...to protest the Uyghur genocide..." is unsupported by a source"}}? I don't have any intention to 'edit war'; on the other hand, certain editors who are more experienced and coordinated (see point below about Sportsfan 1234) appear to be abusing the technicalities of Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines while violating the spirit of its ], effectively thwarting good faith efforts from other editors who might hold different opinions.
	::Is the unique rendering of my handle as "HorseEB" meant to imply that HaeB and I have some sort of inappropriate relationship? ] (]) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::No I don't believe you are. ] (]) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for clarifying. ] (]) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	Discussion about "Boycott" article:
	: Again, came to the rescue on HorseEB's side, despite never engaging in or never going to engage in Talk. We've already discussed taggin, so I won't repeat here. After provided new source, it was over. ] (]) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

	'''Suggestion:'''
	Not sure who is the one edit warring here, Horse Eye or CurryCity. My suggestion for the article was stated as: "Suggestion that one of the editors on the Talk page discussion start a formal RFC for this, and no edits on Controversies issues in the lead section until completion of the RFC." Horse Eye rejected this offer and removed it. ] (]) 16:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	: We don't really do "offers" in edit summaries, your edit removed the entirety of the section from the lead . ] (]) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	::The RFC is a good approach in many dispute situations. Why do you reject it here? My own edit on the page removed one sentence dealing with the Controversy issue while suggesting the RFC as a better course to take; your calling it "the entirety of the section", is inaccurate. ] (]) 16:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	::: You removed the entirety of the disputed section. Its not BLP so why remove it during discussion if the discussion is primarily about what it should say not about whether or not it should exist (its the largest single section so there isn't really much question about it being summarized in the lead to some extent)? You also didn't remove it in your first revert (you just restored a tag, scrubbed Uyghur genocide, and scrubbed human rights in China) so what changed? ] (]) 17:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::Please, somebody use the talk page. If ] favors an RfC, why not make a proposal on Talk. ] (]) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I have used the talk page exhaustively... More than 30 edits in the last week, if ] makes an RfC I will of course participate (more eyes and opinions is always better and for that reason I encourage ErnestKrause to participate on the talk page, even if they don't open an RfC I look forward to hearing what they have to say). ] (]) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:Adding a synthesis tag is not the same thing as changing the content the tag is applied to, currycity did not break 3rr. Horse Eye's has been edit warring extensively on the page they have reported currycity on and should probably have considered ] before making this report. ] (]) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	::Speaking of Boomerang are you aware that these two edits could be construed as ] your week long block from reverting at 2022 Winter Olympics especially in the context of the diffs provided above? {{Ping\|EdJohnston}} what say you? ] (]) 22:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::What are you talking about? Those are not reverts, the block prevented me from reverting on that page for 1 week and i have not done so, you seem to be engaged in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked. Please stop. ] (]) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::Also note, one of those isn't even on the page in discussion, and so is irrelevant, (the other, is entirely new content which i added (not a revert)). ] (]) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

	It's very clear that {{u\|CurryCity}} violated 3RR with their edits:
	*Per ], {{tq\|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert.}}
	*At 07:32 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an that removed reference to the ] as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead.
	*At 17:43 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an which reverted {{u\|Horse Eye's Back}}. CurryCity's edit removed reference to the ] as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead. ''This was CurryCity's first revert.''
	*At 18:24 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an which has a summary indicating that it was intended to revert an made by {{u\|Sportsfan 1234}}. CurryCity's restoration <u>completely</u> undid by {{u\|Ironman1104}}, which was a copyedit. The edit also changed {{tq\|due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China}} to {{tq\|due to human rights violations in China amidst allegations of atrocities against Uyghurs}} ''This was CurryCity's second revert.''
	*At 20:28 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an to insert a tag to dispute whether or not {{tq\|due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China}} is ].
	*At 21:59 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an to restore a disputed synthesis tag after it was by {{u\|HaeB}}. ''This was CurryCity's third revert''.
	*At 03:49 on 4 February 2022, CurryCity made an . The edit changes {{tq\|due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China}} to {{tq\|amidst human rights abuses in China and allegations of Uyghur genocide}}. ''This was CurryCity's fourth revert''. It was also the fourth time in that time that the editor removed the clause {{tq\|due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide}} from the lead within a 24 hour period.
	It's also extremely clear that {{u\|Horse Eye's Back}} has not violated the three revert rule this month on ] based off of looking at the user's edit history. Looking through the past 1000 edits on the page (which stretches into October of last year), I can't find any point where Horse Eye's Back has violated the 3RR here. {{user2\|CurryCity}}, however, has violated 3RR within the past day. There is a real difference here between the appropriateness of the actions of the two editors.
	— ] (]) 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:According the reasoning of ], this adds up to five reverts by CurryCity in a 24 hour period. (I am excluding the , because that time CurryCity was adding a synthesis tag which had not been in the article before, so it was not a revert). ] (]) 03:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::To be charitable (and in line with how deleting longstanding content that's been in the article is counted with respect to 3RR), I would imagine that the ] removal that started this shouldn't be counted as a fifth revert. That being said, there's definitely at least four, which is obviously a violation of ]. — ] (]) 03:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::: Mhawk10 pointed out a third revert (21:59 on 3 February 2022); that was not a revert. The tag I had inserted was {{tq\|}} with the code <nowiki>{{Synthesis inline\|date=February 2022\|sure=yes\|reason=see Talk}}</nowiki>. After HaeB gave their revert reason {{tq\|"Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref; concerns about the current naming of the linked article are not a justification for deleting the link here"}}, which by the way was untrue regarding any deletion of links, I removed the {{tq\|"sure{{=}}yes"}} so that the new tag {{tq\|}} would reflect HaeB's objection. Scrolling through the ], it is factual that there were heated debates going on. Why would HaeB, assuming good faith, want to remove ANY indication of discussion going on regarding synthesis? I pinged ] asking which version they wanted to revert back to, whether they wanted to remove any indication whatsoever, but they replied without addressing it. ] (]) 08:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::: A minor point, Mhawk10 is looking at my 3RR right after an incident (namely this one). If you were to do so right after an incident involving HorseEB, you ''might'' find something as well. The comparison wasn't even-handed. ] (]) 09:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	It was unfair for Sportsfan 1234 to suddenly come in and revert on HorseEB's side not only but , even though they had never engaged in the respective discussions. Amidst all this spamming of 'edit war', flooding relevant pages with that label, trying to count as many reverts against me as possible, throwing accusations at me instead of making even the tiniest compromise or constructive edit, involving other editors whose only contributions were reverts, etc., what HorseEB and HaeB really wanted was to apply ] (] {{tq\|"I like the common name better"}}, ] {{tq\|"I wanted to use the common name"}}, and ] {{tq\|"currently chosen to name the article about this topic Uyghur genocide"}}) outside the context of naming an article, in ] and ] for instance, even when the sources themselves employ different terms and meanings. In effect, they wanted to override ] and ]. However, if RSes (short of majority) were to say "the genocide against Uyghurs has stopped, but atrocities against them continue", would it make sense to apply the common name, as HorseEB and HaeB insist, and write "the Uyghur genocide has stopped, but Uyghur genocides continue"? Or, if "countries are boycotting China for crimes against humanity but not for genocide", should we blanket apply the common name as well? RSes and the people they quote use specific language and meaning for certain reasons. That is why we should respect WP:V and WP:NOR outside of article naming, even at variance with WP:COMMONNAME, and why I feel HorseEB and HaeB have placed a lopsided emphasis on 3RR, relying on a reversion arm-race against me, while ignoring more important principles. ] (]) 09:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned''' for violating 3RR on Feb. 3rd and 4th per the above. They may be blocked if they revert again at ] in the next seven days. I take note that CurryCity has participated on Talk but that does not excuse the reverting. ] (]) 16:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User talk:Horse Eye's Back}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xoltered}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#
	#
	#
	#

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />

	Thank you {{Ping\|Arkon}} for that last revert. This is my talk page. This is not OK. This is well over the line into harassment along with the edit warring. ] (]) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:Read my edit summary for an explanation, you made a lie about my actions and then repeatedly deleted my response. As stated, i have no intention of continuing any discussion on your talk page as requested. Please move on with your life instead of lying about me deleting messages and deleting my response in which i show it is simply me correcting my own incorrect dating on my own messages. You are aware people can see deleted diffs right? This isn't even an article, and it is simply my own comment, you should also note i stopped before this report was made. Not sure why you feel the need to undo me fixing my own dating on my own message beyond a bad faith attempt to get action taken against me. ] (]) 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	Just to clarify, (correct if mistaken) it appears Xoltered was only correcting a date tag to their own comment not anything else, so Diff 1 was not a reversion. Neither was Diff 2 where Xoltered added a comment (additional note below). Diff 3 was actually Xoltered first reversion, following HorseEB's revert immediately prior. And after that was reverted by HorseEB for the second time, Xoltered reverted for a second time as well.
	: I'm not against Horse Eye's Back having most control over their Talk page, but also want to add that respect goes both ways, in light of their openings of high-level warning sections on mine. ] (]) 00:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::You are mistaken, they did not just correct the date tag they removed my note about the date being wrong "<small> Note that despite being dated "23:49, 29 January 2022" this comment was actually made 18:45, 3 February 2022 </small>" ] (]) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::Oh, i thought that was automated, in any case it's obviously justified to remove the note about the date being wrong when correcting the date. ] (]) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::That is not a justification for removing an editor's comment on their own page... Correcting an error doesn't mean that you get to remove the comments which pointed out the error. ] (]) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::That was not a comment? Just a note about the incorrect time. What? So you think i should have left the note about the incorrect time while it now had a now correct time? Also as stated above i thought the note was automated. Furthermore, what issue do you have with me correcting the time, or providing an explanation for me doing so after you misleadingly claimed that i deleted another user's comment? ] (]) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::: Notes and comments are the same thing here, they're both my additions to my talk page. You also did delete my comment so I'm not sure whats misleading about it. ] (]) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::::: When you say i deleted another user's comment, people will not think i deleted a simple note about an incorrect time while correcting it, but instead believe i deleted an actual comment in discussion from another user. Even so, what issue do you have my reply existing, why did you feel the need to delete it twice, or make this ridiculous report about me reverting 2 (not 4) times my own message being deleted, which already had justification provided for me doing so in the edit summary. ] (]) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::: What exactly in ] do you feel justified your editing a talk page after being asked not to? And not just editing but edit warring your edit back onto the page after it had been removed... ] (]) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::The link you provided addresses editing other user's comments, in any case Signature cleanup seems to fit this situation quite well. ] (]) 00:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Also note, another section in the page you linked "Behavior that is unacceptable" mentions "Misrepresentation of other people", something that i believe you have done for reasons discussed above. Perhaps you should read that page and acknowledge your mistake and then move on. ] (]) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Further note: This discussion about action on your user page, that page is about talk page guidelines, further proving you did not bother to read the article at all before linking it. ] (]) 01:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	Context: Xoltered had already about edit-warring just this Monday. It's also not the first time that they disagree with their opponents in a China-related controversy about the definition of edit-warring, see (reaction to a warning about edit-warring from Snooganssnoogans), (by Adoring nanny). Similar to CurryCity (thread one above), there also seems to be a pattern of throwing all kinds of counter-accusations at their adversaries, including factually inaccurate ones, which caused to Shibbolethink to advise Xoltered about ] last week . Regards, ] (]) 00:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:This is completely irrelevant, what happened is I corrected my incorrect dating in a message, Horse Eye's reverted it and falsely claimed I deleted another user's message, i replied explaining the reality and then they repeatedly deleted my reply while keeping their lies about my action. ] (]) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::But you did delete another user's message... Mine (as you acknowledge in your response above, even if you blame it on the mistaken belief that my message was automated and then claim that the deletion of my comment was "obviously justified"). So not a lie. ] (]) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::It was not a comment, just a note about the incorrect time, as stated above (please do not duplicate discussion) it is ridiculous to keep the simple note about the incorrect time while correcting the time. Considering your past action however, and the unjustified issue with me correcting it in the first place, i doubt this is a good faith discussion. ] (]) 00:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::You can't remove notes either. Its not ridiculous, its what you need to do. ] (]) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::So you think it should have been: "Message (signature with correct time) note: this says (incorrect time) but was actually posted at (correct time)"? This is ridiculous, and again not actually what this discussion is about, rather it is claiming I "edit warred" due to reverting back my own reply to what i believe is an incredibly misleading statement about my action 2 (not 4) times. I still do not understand why you take issue with me correcting the time or making the reply. ] (]) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	: I don't want to encourage edit warring. That said, HaeB's disclosure of information again could have been more complete and balanced, namely that the revert warning Xoltered received was specific to 1 article: {{tq\|"Result: User:Xoltered is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts to 2022 Winter Olympics within the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)"}}. ] (]) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::Indeed i think horseeye's might have been dissapointed by the result of that report and wishes to use this report to have action taken against me despite my clear lack of edit warring. ] (]) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	Jumping in here, since I commented on the talk page of Horse Eye's Back: I really don't understand , which falsely backdated an edit warring notice to January 29, making it appear as if it were issued at a different point in time than it was actually given. The edit notice was actually given on , not January 29. This happened well after I why the edit warring notice was given to Horse Eye's Back on February 3 despite there not being anything this month on ] that could have justified giving the warning, especially given that the template is made to get people who {{tq\|are currently engaged in an edit war}} to stop edit warring. — ] (]) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:That happened because i copied the notice from another user's page, however i accidentally copied the date too, It should be noted this discussion is primarily about me fixing the incorrect date (some of the diffs above which horseeye falsely claims are revision show this) which should make it clear it was a genuine mistake. ] (]) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:Infact, it was your mentioning of the incorrect date that alerted me that it was incorrect and so i fixed it. ] (]) 01:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::To clarify, the "incorrect date" I was mentioning was with respect to the heading. I also pushed back on ''substantial grounds'', since the notice didn't appear to address issues that were ongoing. — ] (]) 02:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::I am aware, i also fixed that and that was also undone by Horse Eye. ] (]) 05:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	I think this discussion should end. Simply put, i removed a note about an incorrect dating after my own comment which i believed was automated but was actually from HorseEye, while correcting the time. HorseEye then said i should not reply on their talk page and reverted my correction of the dating and i replied to that clarifying the situation and saying i would no longer do so. They reverted my reply and i reverted my reply back two (not four) times as i believe it is important people understand the reason i did the original edit, however after a revision by another unrelated editor i decided not to continue doing so. This report is ridiculous, this discussion is ridiculous. The list of diffs even falsely claims two diffs of entirely new content are revisions, and given that i clearly stated my intention not to continue making replies and did not revert the most recent revision before this was made I don't think HorseEye is genuinely concerned about my action but rather is not engaging in good faith and wishes action to be taken against me due to unrelated disputes on other pages. Either way i hope this report will be closed soon. ] (]) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard. Rather than bickering over comments on a user talk page it would be better to focus on the underlying issue which seems to be ] and probably other articles judging by the intensity. @Horse Eye's Back: Sorry but whatever Xoltered's sins on other pages may or may not be, it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder and it would be unreasonable to insist that your assertion about the date being wrong be retained after the date was corrected. I suppose if you really wanted to win the battle you could add a new note saying that originally Xoltered posted an incorrect date, then fixed it when their mistake was pointed out. The edit warring concerns Xoltered reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight regarding an assertion you made about them. I would agree that Xoltered's templated notice was badly implemented and very inadequately explained when you reasonably asked what the concern was. However, my recommendation would be to delete the section from your talk and save energy for articles. ] (]) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::I think you are correct in pointing out that an edit war on a mainspace article is more consequential than an edit war on a user's talk page. However, ] still applies to both, and we can't tell editors they must refrain from bringing policy violations to this noticeboard if they "only" occurred on a user talk page.
	::{{tq\|it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder}} - what edit does that refer to? I though the objection was rather about trying to delete Horse Eye's Back's note that that comment had originally been posted with a misleading timestamp. I realize how insisting to document such an issue could seem to appear a bit petty when viewed in isolation, but take the possibility into account that editors who have had the opportunity to observe patterns in Xoltered's editing a bit more may take a different view - see also Mhawk10's comment above about how that "blunder" may not have been such a small matter.
	::There also seems to be a tension between ] and the insinuation that Xoltered might have been justified in edit-warring about {{tq\|reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight ...}} way after the recipient's to cease editing that user talk page.
	::Regards, ] (]) 02:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::The page linked specifies "without good reason" the good reason is provided both when they were made and above in this discussion. Furthermore, even if I were violating that it would not be edit warring. ] (]) 05:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action taken. The level of concern expressed in the posts here seems out of proportion to the original issue. Be aware that users can revert on their own talk page without penalty under the ]. Admin ] has given a more detailed assessment of the issue above, concluding that "This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard." This whole thing seems to be a spillover from a dispute at ]. ] (]) 18:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Malati Rishidev}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Nirmaljoshi}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#
	#


	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />

	The progress of the discussion can refer to ].

	I believe my comments have only gotten his response in his edit summary.Has not received an on-topic response in ].--] (]) 05:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	: I am a bit suspicious of the ].Not sure why the editor is delebrately focused in removing chinese sources. Best regards!] (]) 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::See ]
	::Although you asked me to delete this report, I can't delete it because I can't change your message. ] (]) 09:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::Please do not strike reports. I've removed those tags. ] - ] 13:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nv}} – It seems that ] has provided a , so I hope the matter is now resolved. The claim that Rastinition is 'deliberately focused on removing Chinese sources' is troublesome, so I hope that nobody makes that claim again without good evidence. It is unclear whether ] understands Rastitinion's advice not to use ]. At any rate, ] is available to settle disputes about quality of sources. Rastinition is not just saying that the sentence used too many references, but that content farms should not be cited at all. ] (]) 18:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 31 hours; subsequently indeffed as a sock) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SkyWay Group}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Bkissin Free}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:'''

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*There is no 3RR violation. It is, however, possible, that some of the IPs editing the article before the article was semi-protected belong to Bkissin Free. I've blocked Bkissin Free, though, for egregious personal attacks against Wan Shi Tong.--] (]) 14:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|College of Policing}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Telanian7790}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=College_of_Policing&oldid=1062609055

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# {{Diff\|College of Policing\|1069963835\|1065051198\|00:06, 5 February 2022}}
	# {{Diff\|College of Policing\|1069966982\|1069965284\|00:28, 5 February 2022}}
	# {{Diff\|College of Policing\|1069977935\|1069968265\| 01:44, 5 February 2022}}
	# {{Diff\|College of Policing\|1070087711\|1070066673\|16:24, 5 February 2022}}

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See ]. {{u\|Telanian7790}} has not responded

	'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Telanian7790&type=revision&diff=1070094263&oldid=1070094198&diffmode=source

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	As content disputes go, a rather trivial one. The source is poorly written. It could have been resolved via the BRD had Telanian7790 bothered to engage. ] (]) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked by {{u\|Drmies}} ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked by {{u\|Drmies}} ) ==
Line 255:		Line 43:

	* {{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} by {{noping\|Drmies}} for violation of ] - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)		* {{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} by {{noping\|Drmies}} for violation of ] - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 60 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Malay gamelan}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mbis Saravon}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# {{diff2\|1070161296\|01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)}} "]"
	# {{diff2\|1070160438\|01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)}} "WP:VANDALISM"
	# {{diff2\|1070152534\|00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)}} "Do not vandalise sourced article."
	# {{diff2\|1070149637\|23:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)}} "The sources is obvious."
	# {{diff2\|1070118473\|19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)}} ""

	'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|1070160779\|01:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

	'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


	<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:I still preserved all sources, I didn't even put any Indonesian sources on the article, all I did just expanded and improve the article based on the sources within the article itself and also some additional sources. (] (]) 01:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC))
	::{{re\|Mbis Savaron}} You have drastically and repeatedly altered the lead without seeking consensus. That's edit warring. –] (]) 01:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{re\|Austronesier}} I didn't drastically altered the article, I expanded it based on the provided sources and also I put one pr two additional source to strenghten the specific content scope. In fact, you're the one who repeatedly remove all the content and sources without any specific reason and consideration, you're the one who did the edit warring. You're even . (] (]) 01:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC))

	:A reviewing admin may be interested in , added after the contribution above. ] (]) 01:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|60 hours}}. ] (]) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

Revision as of 02:51, 8 February 2022

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
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 from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

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 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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:86.175.111.238 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:Blocked by Drmies )

User being reported: 86.175.111.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Revert unexplained and unhelpful edit"
22:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */As used by the themselves. This is official. This trumps whatever Misplaced Pages considers correct"
Consecutive edits made from 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) to 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
1. 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */What does 'putting him through college' mean?"
2. 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */The Corra use a capital (see their website) and is also widely use elsewhere"
22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Has a capital"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ Well, not here"
22:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "+ {{ow}}"
22:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stevie Nicks‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP's comment at AIV - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Drmies for violation of MOS:THEBAND - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:197.89.19.211 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: This is has been going on since February 4, and it is Edit Warring by the ip

You neglected to mention that I was the one who started the discussion on the article's talk page. And, read the sentence the way you prefer it. It is the longest-running professional wrestling event in history. That can only mean one thing. I tried rewording it, to correct it. And, for whatever reason, you prefer it to sound like WrestleMania 1 is still happening. But I won't bother trying to correct very badly worded articles like that again. So, you "win", for what that's worth. And anyway, I'm off to MSG now to watch the still-running WrestleMania 1. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP is warned that if they resume editing at the article, they risk being blocked without further notice. Your aggressive/attacking style is separately sanctionable, and you have been blocked before for it. Chip3004, reports here require diffs, not links. Your presentation forced me to do all the work myself. Also, your messaging at the IP's Talk page is dreadful. First, with the exception of one edit that was reverted by ClueBot, the IP's edits were not vandalism. Second, you insisted on repeating messages after the IP removed them, which was their right. Third, you double-messaged making the IP's Talk page a mess, all of which they blanked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:RossButsy (Result: )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1069864778:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1070260937:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1070260937

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing before and is seemingly unwilling to engage in discussion.

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring on the same page before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: EC protection)

User being reported: Loverofediting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "See talk page. Removed baseless opinion."
19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "“Tide turned” is baseless and incorrect. Please read what I wrote on the Talk page."
19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Removed a baseless opinion that the “tide turned”."
19:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Not a fact. An opinion."
18:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Tide turned? Not a fact."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "/* The intro */ reply"

Comments:

Says "See talk page" after not replying to talk page comment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruption continues . Requested temporary EC protection at RPP in case they get to this first. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the admins:/ This has been here for 24 hours now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: Page EC protected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Asfedayn reported by User:Atlantic306 (Result: No violation)

User being reported: Asfedayn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change here, their first revert of my restore here, this is their second revert of my restore here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on their talk page my main point here. Although I was incorrect in suggesting a pro-Pallotta coi when they have now shown to be very critical of him in regard to his interests at AC Roma.diff

Comments:

User:Asfedaynan spa removed referenced material from Boston magazine that Pallotta is a billionnaire changing it to millionnaire. I ve reverted twice theyve reinserted twice and I don't want to go to three. Ive tried a discussion on their userpage but it became ill-tempered. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No violation – The same issue was raised in another report. See my closure there. Both sides should consider following WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:DudeFromTheBaltics reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

User being reported: DudeFromTheBaltics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "I still don't understand why do you all want Latvia look like a Russian state. I bet, add this also to Estonia, since they also have a lot of Russian speakers. This literally makes me angry by knowing how biased some of the editors are."
01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Excuse me, are you threatening me to ban, because I said this one guy to stop posting in Latvia's wikipedia page that Latvia's minority language is Russian? Latvian constitutional law doesn't put Russian as the minority language and by that I will stand. Also, you should put this exact sentence to Estonia and Lithuania, not only Latvia. Don't threaten me, this is 💕 after all, and I will work to put it as neutral as possible."
20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070312450 by Denis tarasov This source doesn't show Russian is a minority language. Stop this or I'll have to report this as vandalism(talk)"
20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070307023 by Denis tarasov Why you're adding this to only Latvia? There are more than one language. Also your sources doesn't say about Russian language. (talk)"
19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070269734 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"
16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070125027 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Latvia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Russian language in infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Having no luck in getting editors to talk about edits. Moxy- 02:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlantic306 reported by User:Asfedayn (Result: No violation)

User being reported: Atlantic306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change I made here, here, After Atlantic306 reverted the change this is the second time I edited the information here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on my talk page my main point here. Regrettably, the discussion was almost immediately made personal by Atlantic306, given almost right away I was accused of having a conflict of interest. Other instances, such as "I am not your mate" further heighten the suspicion that the edit was mistakenly taken personally, when that was not at all the intention of the edit. Even in the report, Atlantic306 seems to suggest an undermining of my position as just someone critical of Pallotta, which again, ignored all the arguments put forward - see below. As I stated on many occasions, the core of the inquiry is on accuracy and truthfulness, which is not personal. I tried to put forward many reasons for why using the word "billionaire" was inaccurate and misleading, but as evidenced by the discussion, all of the arguments were ignored. I tried informing Atlantic306 that the source is an old article from a 2006 issue of the Boston Magazine, which cannot consider the 2009 crisis in which Pallotta lost most of his assets. Further, I pointed out that the magazine itself offered no source or evidence of where how the information was obtained. I tried to inform Atlantic306 that Pallotta is also not present on the Forbes list, which was ultimately ignored as well. While the source might have been accurate over 15 years ago, currently it would be dangerously misleading to suggest Pallotta is a "billionaire" without any evidence of it. I believe we should strive to put out accurate and truthful information, which was the point of my edit - regrettably, an edit war was initiated by Atlantic306 because presumably the edit was taken as a personal attack and no efforts were made in trying to resolve the issue, other than personal attacks such as the insinuation of a conflict of interest.

Comments:

User:Atlantic306 continued to revert that Pallotta is a billionnaire, despite evidence to the contrary. I have tried a discussion on my userpage but as shown above and by the discussion itself, it was made personal by Atlantic306 and, at least presumably, never entered with a bona fide intent to come to a resolution, as the attacks and ignoring of arguments regrettably confirm. Asfedayn (talk) 6:50, 6 February 2022 (PTC)

I have not edit-warred or I wouldn't have kept your version. As for you calling me a mate that was not sincere and I haven't attacked you in any way at all,Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen by the searches on the talkpage there is recent coverage that calls him a billionnaire and there is also some coverage that calls him a millionnaire so it is not a clear cut case you have suggested, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Asking if you have a coi is common practice if you have only edited his article and saying you were critical of him as shown here is not a criticism, just stating the facts. Also I have no coi myself, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No violation – I encourage further discussion on Boston Magazine's claim from 2006 that Pallotta is a billionaire. It seems that Pallotta has not made it into the Forbes list of billionaires. When there is conflict of sources, some qualification may be needed. Actual billionaires tend to be conspicuous and be widely covered in the press. There is at present no discussion of sources on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cedar777 reported by User:Hemantha (Result: Self-revert)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070050132 by Sriramk750

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Context:
05-Feb-2022, 11:44 - Sriramk750 adds allopathic to IMA sentence in lead (while removing some other text)
05-Feb-2022, 11:49 - Black Kite reverts

User's reverts:
06-Feb-2022, 06:46 - Cedar777 adds "allopathic" back in the lead sentence while moving it down, along with other minor (ce,ref titles) edits
06-Feb-2022, 10:47 - I revert the "allopathic" addition and the lead sentence move
06-Feb-2022, 18:33 - Cedar777 repeats their edit (including the word allopathic), but in the body. They don't touch the lead sentence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There was a talk page discussion on the same day where multiple editors explained the consensus about this issue to a new editor. Cedar777 hasn't participated in that discussion, but has commented upon others in the same time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070377315

Comments:
Page subject to 1RR. There's longstanding consensus about the sentence in lead - IMA describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks. Occasionally, IPs and new editors wish to change it to - practice allopathic medicine as quacks. hemantha (brief) 05:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: No action due to a self-revert. Cedar777 undid their last change after my request on their talk page. This edit broke the 1RR restriction on the page which had been applied due to WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:49.195.81.81 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 49.195.81.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision you don't reply for over a week. And USDA trust the analysis and you're speculating that USDA is irresponsible."
04:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070370666 by discuss on Talk First. USDA database is reliable."
03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses */Added in USDA database for nutrition information and analysis. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Goji."
06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Goji."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Vitamin A? */ r"
04:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Really? there needs to be a Nutrition chapter */ r"

Comments:

User is edit warring within last 12 hours and in recent history on Goji, using at least 4 different IPs on the talk page and article, despite 4 experienced editors offering numerous explanations for what appears to be inability to understand USDA data presentations and nutrition contents, and need for WP:RS sources. Zefr (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on your own count. I didn't break the 3 RR rule. So nothing to discuss. Today is the first time I specifically added in the USDA database. Never have I ever done that before. So I reverted twice only today and not three times.

49.195.81.81 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Page protected See note on talk page. Ritchie333 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Fewspeed555 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Long-term edit war accross several articles on Thai political parties. RJFF (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

With the exception of a few edits in 2014, the editor has only edited since January 2022. Apparently they change the position of the party in the infobox or elsewhere in the articles. They have never responded to any warnings; indeed, they have never talked at all. I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: revision (4 Feb revision immediately preceding the addition that is being reverted); alternatively construed: diff of 6 Feb revert (being reverted back to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Earlier reverts (not within 24h):

6 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd (link to talk section)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (link to talk section)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

The discussion involving multiple editors is ongoing, the removed section is both praised and scrutinized, and incremental improvement is being considered. twabin 22:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The objection (not only mine) is that the recently introduced subsection is off-topic and therefore should not be in the article pending the ongoing discussion. The matter is quite plain. Instead of participating on the TalkPage, Twsabin keeps re-introducing the dubious material under discussion.Axxxion (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There had been no consensus that the table should be removed pending discussion. Your edit warring is egregious. twabin 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that you were both edit-warring but are now participating in a discussion at the article talk page. I'm not a regular admin at this noticeboard so I'm not going to respond with any penalties, just commenting after looking over this article. Liz 00:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR and my intent was to maintain the discussed section, so that it may be discussed and improved further, while the here reported editor tried to impose their preferred state of the article (and enforce it by edit warring), bypassing discussion, based on a defective reasoning that something that is undergoing discussion can't also be included in the article at the same time. Seeing how their removal was disruptive in the context of an ongoing discussion, I consider my three reverts to be helpful and generally consistent with policy. I can't accept the conclusion that our conduct was roughly the same. I request preventative action, so that the reported editor understands their error. twabin 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: