Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia


6 people in discussion

Article Images

Page: Chetniks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User:Peacemaker67 has been engaged in making a point for long time now, but seems he has really lost control of himself and allowed to break 3RR rule. He is making clear WP:SYNTH, the source says nothing about Chetniks having any anti-Yugoslav policy, and he further adds anti-Croatianism and anti-Muslimism without willing to provide precise quotes for it at talk-page. He has made several reverts on several articles for last weeks, and now has made 4 reverts in little more than 2 hours without providing the necesary quotes at talk-page. Even worste is that he is an admin and as such he should provide an exemple on how to behave on this cases. I knew about this dispute, it kept apearing in my watchilst, I gave him a chance to provide exact quotes, but he chose to edit-war and try to play the rules. FkpCascais (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is nonsense. There are two separate things going on here. The first diff is me restoring the unexplained unpiping of several terms in the infobox [2] regarding the ideology of the Chetniks. The IP reverted my piping, so I reverted them as the terms I had used were those in the source.[3] This was the end of these reverts, there have been no more reverts regarding piping.
I should add that IPs have again popped up to revert the piping, but other editors reverted them, and the article was subsequently semi'd to stop the disruption. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Then Fkp completely deleted three ideologies from the infobox along with the citations to them, claiming that the source did not support those ideologies.[4] although it is apparent from later edit summaries that Fkp had not in fact read the source. I restored the material, stating that the source did in fact support the material, and posted on the talk page quotes from the source.[5][6] Even though I had already provided the material on the talk page and Fkp clearly had still not read the source in question, Fkp again deleted the material[7] with the edit summary "It shouldn´t be a problem then to provide exact citations for the community to see at talk and see if they are SYNTH or if they say really that" I reverted Fkp with the edit summary "I've already provided direct quotes on the talk page. Perhaps you should read the book before you make a claim it doesn't contain what I have added and cited, and now provided on the talk page".[8]
So, there are two different issues here, one regarding piping with two reverts, and one regarding the deletion of ideologies with two reverts. Fkp has a long block log for disruptive editing [9] including discretionary sanctions under ARBMAC. In contrast I have a long history of writing balanced and neutral Featured articles in a controversial area (Yugoslavia in WWII). This should boomerang on Fkp for deleting reliably sourced material and citations when it is clear he has not read the book himself and is just here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the Chetniks. This is backed up by the fact he has been recently ranting about my supposed anti-Chetnik POV at Talk:World War II#Collaboration & Resistance without providing any evidence. My next step here is to start a neutrally-worded RfC for a community view on whether the material is supported by the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'll add that an uninvolved editor has now provided a second reliable source for the material deleted by Fkp. Fkp is clearly engaging in POV editing and should be seen as such. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment The issue is already solved. FkpCascais tried to remove well-sourced content in a very sensitive article. Reverting many times is never a good solution, and I think everything became a mess after an IP editor made several reverts trying to push their POV in several ways. FkpCascais never reminded Peacemaker67 of the fact he had already made 3 or 4 reverts before filing the report; this is not a sign of good faith. Peacemaker67 is one of the best editors Wikipedia has (among other things, probably the best content writer), and does not deserve such situations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I concur. @Peacemaker67 has always kept a dignified manner and stayed above the fray, where a lot of the times many other editors editing Balkan topics have fallen short. I hope common sense prevails here and this matter is speedily closed.Resnjari (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree to close this case and move on. My intention is not to punish anyone, just to call the atention of the rules and that this issues need to be dealt carefully. Peacemaker67 added "anti-Yugoslavism" few days earlier and he had no source at time, instead he pointed out to a section in the article claiming Chetniks being pro-Serbian meant they were anti-Yugoslav. Now he came with the same edit, further adding two more ideologies. My search doesn´t give me any positive result saying Tomasevic ever used those terms in his books, that is why I reverted. However, I did a wider search and found a totally different book from Milan Deroc from 1988 (search "Chetniks anti-Yugoslavism anti-Moslemism").

The issue here is different. The isue is that having just one source is not enough to label one entire movement as such and add it to the infobox. Chetniks in WWII are not really that obscure matter and we have enough of literature on the issue. Being admitedly controversial by historiographers themselves, the issue of Chetniks has been dealt in a wide range going from them being Allied heroes to demonise them as genocidal collaborators. So, adding each and every claim by any source gives us nonsensical situations as having both Yugoslavism and anti-Yugoslavism added. It would be better not to add any claim found, but rather seek a way to find what scholar sources say regarding the issue in general, WP:UNDUE, and searching objectivity and neutrality. In this case we have conflicting claims, Chetniks, officially named Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, being anti-Yugoslav while being a Yugoslav army, well... Furthermore, claiming they were anti-Croatian and anti-Moslem (even the word anti-Moslem is grammatically incorrect found in only one source) while they were open to all Yugoslav nationalities willing to join them, is controversial, as well. It is well known Croats overwelmingly joined pro-Axis Ustashe rather then Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, and the last in their anti-Axis actions engaged against Croatian Ustashe regime, but that doesn´t make them anti-Croatian, as Ustashe were only a radicalised, German-backed, portion of Crotian national preference. Regarding ideologies, historiographers make different claims, it is an issue that should be evaluated carefully, and not just by cherry-picking the claims with one source only backing it, just because one backs that POV.

Adding in the infobox that Yugoslav Army in Fatherland is anti-Yugoslav while it was the official Yugoslav army for much of the conflict, is rather an exceptional claim, specially by being backed by only one source. Taking it to talk seems most reasonable. Edit-warring to add such content doesn´t seem correct to me. I made this report wanting to call the atention to this. Peacemaker67 knows Chetniks is a controversial issue, so his insistance in cherry-picking sources that clearly make exceptional claims and edit-warring for it just because he has one source is something I dont agree with. Chetniks and related articles have seen a long-standing low-frequency conflict between editors adding all possible negative connotation to them (collaboration being their must) against editors opposing it, remembering most historians, specially non-Yugoslav ones, fail to provide such accusational claims, and some also praise them for their resistance efforts. Being that the case, I made this report because I believe an editor should not break our rules for believing being right for having one source. We had a mediation on this, which concluded world-wide historiographers generally don´t agree with the anti-Chetnik narrative, and that there was much propaganda made against them by the Yugoslav communist regime and its historiographers. However, some ditors ignore the mediation conclusions and keep on adding one-sided content only. Maybe it is time to agree a new dispute resolution mechanism. FkpCascais (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't agree with you more. Well said Jingiby, well said.Resnjari (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
As a matter of fact I dd Jingby (I tend to always give a chance to people, in general), but than I saw your pushing of Bulgarian POV bordering with propaganda on all Macedonia-related articles. Therefore - save me the Hypocrisy. ty Sadko (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
As a general rule, this page is for discussion related to potential editor who is edit-warring, but not for discussion about other editors or other unrelated topics, or statements based on your personal thoughts or feelings. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: Tucker Carlson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] (deleted by the user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

The user has been introducing changes in an article without achieving consensus in the talk page, even after called to do so ([17]). The user has a recurrent behavior of removing warnings from their user talk page ([18] [19]); in reference to my warnings, the user described the removals as «troll» and «harassment by troll» respectively. Their behavior is not constructive and very difficult to deal with for me, since I have involved in several edit wars with them in the past (concretely because they do not properly justify their arbitrary edits in the talk page and engage in constant edit wars). During the edit wars that involve this user, often a group of other users appeared to push for a common POV in conjunction, although it is unknown if this group behavior is intentional or not [see users involved between diffs: [20] [21] [22]]. Due to all this, it's for me hard to keep assuming good faith, and, in my opinion, it's likely that the user is involved in sockpuppetry and/or canvassing. Ajñavidya (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Non-admin comment: I think we need a boomerang here. Ajñavidya has been problematic for some time on this and other articles covering far right wing politics and politicians. They have a very obvious POV to push and it is understandable if editors are finding this frustrating. Back in July, I had to warn them for using dishonest edit summaries that misrepresented the consensus of discussion on a talkpage on Carlos Maza and that escalated into a final warning before they backed off. I now see that they backed off, not to behave better, but merely to behave badly somewhere else. This brings us to the Tucker Carlson article. So, what have we here? I see that the "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" above is timestamped 2019-09-27T05:33:51 and that the report above is timestamped 2019-09-27T10:47:24. So they allowed 5 hours from their first and only attempt to discuss this on the talk page before reporting here. Other users, including Wallyfromdilbert, had been discussing it for some time before this[23]. Plausible objections to the referencing and accuracy of the removed content have been presented and it does not sound good for the content in question, at least in the form that it is currently written. So did Wallyfromdilbert do anything wrong here? I certainly don't see any 3RR violation and I also see other editors also removing the same problematic content suggesting that consensus closer to being on their side. So what is this? A sloppy report or a sign of actual bad faith abuse of the reporting system by an editor with a POV to push seeking to silence their perceived opponent? I don't know exactly, but somewhere between WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE I think we have a problem with Ajñavidya. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I made 2 reverts in 24 hours, and my changes were supported by at least 3 other editors (only Ajñavidya objects to them). Given the unsupported aspersions about "sockpuppetry and/or canvassing", I would like for Ajñavidya to be warned about their behavior towards me. I can also take this issue to ANI or AE if one of those is more appropriate. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Result: Both User:Wallyfromdilbert and User:Ajñavidya are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they edit the article again on the subject of politically-motivated harassment of Carlson or members of his family, unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The four edits listed in this report cover a period of more than 24 hours, so this dispute should be treated as a long-term edit war rather than a 3RR violation. It appears that politically-motivated harassment was first added to the article by Ajñavidya on 15 August, though it has been removed by others several times. Ajñavidya's charge that Wallyfromdilbert is engaged in 'sockpuppetry and/or canvassing' is not credible. (The local climate of editor opinion may not be very sympathetic to Tucker Carlson). However, it is my guess that a full discussion would support some mention of the 'political harassment' topic. If you have the patience, consider an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]; response of the user: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kaliningrad#Language of the article (the user claims there is strong consensus for their version, which is clearly not the case).

The user has 126 edits and for whatever reason has a strong opinion that the article must use British English. Strictly speaking, they have not made three reverts in 24h, but they edit infrequently, and every time they show up at Wikipedia they make a revert. I hope it can be handled here, without a need to go to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comments:

  Blocked – 72 hours. Long term pattern of edit warring on {{Engvar}} since late August. Judging from their contributions, they have been doing this to other articles as well, such as Marcel Proust and Tver. When we notice a newly-created account with a jokey name that reverts a lot, like this one, we may imagine it is a sock. Let's hope that is not the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Page
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:05, 28 September 2019 "Undid revision 918386908 by Harshil169 (talk)"
  2. 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918384519 by DeluxeVegan (talk)"
  3. 11:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918375981 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
  5. 10:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918373247 by DeluxeVegan (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Page
Template:2019–20 Bundesliga table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
S.A. Julio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "rvv"
  2. 15:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Sakiv (talk) to last version by S.A. Julio"
  3. 15:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Sakiv (talk) to last version by S.A. Julio"
  4. 15:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 918263522 by S.A. Julio (talk): No live updates (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
  2. 15:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918417244 by S.A. Julio (talk) Stop having bad faith"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

He acts as an owner of the pages and lets no one edit before he is the first to do so. I hope to put an end to his actions and give a severe warning for him. An incident between us before had been kept silent then but now the situation was no longer bearable.--Sakiv (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's not true at all, I check once all matches are completed before updating the templates. Just because I sometimes am the quickest does not mean I "own" the page. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Comments:

The edits were disruptive to the page, as information/statistics/scores should not be added while a match is in progress. At WikiProject Football there is a consensus not to add live scores and not to update any statistics while a match is in progress. When the user updated the page, three of the games were still being played, and the table could have therefore changed if any of the teams scored. I was meaning to leave an explanation to the user after all the matches had finished, but it seems they decided to open a discussion here first. Also the message they left on my talk page had no relevance to restoring his live table update. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  •   Warned It is clear that consensus indeed exists against live updating. I have protected the template earlier following Sakiv's request; I will unprotect it now, warn Sakiv, and will block them if they continue edit-warring.Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ymblanter: I updated the results of two games that were ended, but he preferred to spark a edit war instead. You have to look at all my edit that are not part of "live updating". S.A. Julio is the one who must be warned not me. The origin of the problem is that he violated the three-revert rule not because of my "live updating".--Sakiv (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
You updated the results of four games at once in your edits:
  • Hoffenheim v Mönchengladbach (ended 15:18 UTC)
  • Augsburg v Leverkusen (ended 15:19 UTC)
  • Paderborn v Bayern (ended 15:22 UTC)
  • Leipzig v Schalke (ended 15:28 UTC)
Your first edit was at 15:20, while Paderborn v Bayern and Leipzig v Schalke were still ongoing. Leipzig v Schalke was still being played at the time of your final edit. Any goal would have changed GF, GA, and GD, along with possibly the table order if Paderborn scored. League standing tables are meant to show the result of completed matches only, so when I see continuous addition of live standings in my watchlist it looks like vandalism to me. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I replied at the talk page of the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ymblanter: Don't evade the essence of the complaint. The aforementioned has made a clear violation to everyone.--Sakiv (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
We have here a clear case of WP:IDHT.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: Hayley Westenra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nerd271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
Nerd271 is deleting the article subject's Personal Life section even though I tried to compromise. Westenra marital status changed recently, which she herself announced. Her first marriage was well documented in New Zealand (she's known mainly in New Zealand) via https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11180343.

I asked what I should do on the BLP Noticeboard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917468847). After thinking it over, I decided to just leave it just saying she's married (via third revert) and not say she's divorced until a better source says so, but Nerd271 decided to not have it, even though it was like that for several years now when she first married. Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why is it stale? I put an edit that was on there previously for years when she first got married back in 2013, but he keeps reverting it. The thing is that Westenra shared wedding pictures with us online and in a magazine, but he keeps arguing none of our business. Kay girl 97 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: The Rebel Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.100.15.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]


Comments:

Standard issue NPOV-related rapid-fire 3RR violation, edit warring against two editors (myself and Gorilla Warfare). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, by the time I got there to notify them, GW had issued a 24-hour block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: Kulp bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

User is engaged in an edit war in which he is removing cited material from the article calling it "POV and irrelevant material" he has been reverted and contacted at his talk page after his first revert. As a response to this he has reverted the article once again without an edit summary, did not respond at his talk page and deleted the message at his talk page as well as his past warnings.[48] 61.90.77.135 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  •   No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
Also, it seems pretty likely that you're a sock of Bill497. As such, I've undone your edit and protected the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Lessee, after blocking the IP as a sock, another IP that geolocates to the same area comes in, says the block was justified (as if they knew for certain that OP was a sock) but doesn't want the page locked with the revert in place. Yeah, obviously not another sock only digging himself a deeper grave. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: Jimmy Sham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Feminist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

The user Feminist has recently created the new article. I have contributed some edits which were reasonable and non-controversal but the user just indiscriminately reverted and also undid most of my edits. Please note I did not put back any of my edits that was reverted or undone. STSC (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment The four diffs above all seem to be reverting different things, so I don't think that counts as a 3RR violation. But it's clear that both of you need to be discussing changes on the talk page rather than fighting on the article itself. The changes in question don't seem to be major issues so you should be able to come to a compromise.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" per WP:EW. - STSC (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I actually noticed that after I wrote it. Struck.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, anyway, your advice is appreciated. STSC (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Page
Lasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Supumi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "publish 2 sources from books and 1 website.Add few details about Lasia stalk in sri lanka and its uses ."
  2. 14:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "Add citation and source for lasia stalk paragraph."
  3. 13:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "Add reliable source for information"
  4. 13:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "Add about Lasia Stalk. Because in wikipedia there is no"
  5. 12:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "add details about lasia stalk"
  6. 10:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "add about lasia stalk"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
  2. 14:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Repeated addition of supposed medical benefits of this product; the ref does not support the claim. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page
Hunter Street (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pw1845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 15:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC) to 18:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Premise */"
    2. 18:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Premise */"
  5. 18:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. 18:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

User talk:Pw1845#September 2019. Amaury • 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page
Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JimTwitter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918730173 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  2. 02:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918729884 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC) to 02:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Early modern period */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC) to 01:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 00:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918419420 by SmithGraves (talk)"
    2. 00:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918477936 by SmithGraves (talk)"
    3. 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Classical antiquity */"
    4. 01:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Classical antiquity */"
    5. 01:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Classical antiquity */"
    6. 01:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Classical antiquity */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Europe. (TW★TW)"
  2. 01:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Europe. (TW★TW)"
  3. 02:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Europe. (TW★TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Massive copyvio additions to Europe. Will not stop despite warnings. Please see this sample copyvio text: they would kill and enslave millions, pillage and raze cities to the ground, and transform the mighty Mediterranean Sea into the Empire's own private lake. The only time in human history when the whole of the Mediterranean would be under one single government was under Roman rule. from 10 Brutal Facts About the Roman Legions. This is just a small portion of the rest of the copyvios, including unattributed GFDL violations from wikibooks. Dr. K. 02:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Page: Robert-François Damiens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Suilven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57], [58], [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]
  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]
  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

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

Comments:
The user has, for no apparent reason, attacked me and several of my edits this morning, reverting four times in a short period on three articles, without any attempt to explain how they think they are improving the article, or how I did not do so. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have been reverting this person per WP:BANREVERT as they were blocked for edit warring in the range Special:Contributions/46.208.192.0/18. An example sequence is found at Jon Pertwee where the edit warring action was to remove some text from the intro.[73][74][75] Our friend filing this report is evading the rangeblock, and should not be editing here until the block is lifted. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm neither banned nor blocked. Even if I were, that would not justify restoring policy violations to articles. The user is also persistently deleting my explanations of my edits, evidently wishing to discredit me. See the ludicrous situation at [76]. And in a further example of their dishonesty and disruptiveness, they falsely accused me of vandalism at WP:AIV. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
And now they are requesting page protection to support their deletion of my explanation. They have now deleted it 12 times. Insane. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
And now they are deleting my comment on their dishonest request for page protection.[77] 146.90.125.113 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Page
Joshua Wong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mockingjay28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "The previous editor, Citibun failed to cite sources stating Wong's status as policitian. Thus, this revert has been made."
  2. 09:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Please cite the proper souces stating that Wong is a politician."
  3. 08:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 918782180 by Citobun (talk)"
  4. 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Corrected statement according to Hong Kong law"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
  2. 09:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
  3. 09:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
  4. 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC) "/* September 2019 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Here
Comments:

This is a single-purpose account pushing a POV. I attempted to resolve the issue in response to a message the user left on my own talk page, calling attention to the policies at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, with no success. Citobun (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Citobun took the cited sources as non-constructive and charged me with engaging him/her in editing wars, which I never wanted any part of. I abide by the Wikipedia policy in editing and give the necessary information for my edits. Thanks.