Today: Monday 21 June 2021 , 3:22 am


advertisment
search




Administrators' noticeboard Edit warring

Last updated 1 Day , 5 hour 86 Views

Advertisement
In this page talks about ( Administrators' noticeboard Edit warring ) It was sent to us on 19/06/2021 and was presented on 19/06/2021 and the last update on this page on 19/06/2021

Your Comment


Enter code
  {{#if: __NEWSECTIONLINK__ Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed Category:Wikipedia edit warring
{{User:MiszaBot/config
archiveheader =
maxarchivesize = 250K
counter = 423
algo = old(4d)
key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d

User:Hello Animal reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: No violation)

Page:
User being reported:
Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted
Diffs of the user's reverts:
  1. -37
  2. +2
  3. -2
  4. -3
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
User is vandalising the page by giving false information.
  • – Not enough reverts in a 24-hour period to show a violation of the WP:3RR rule. You are misusing the term 'vandalism'. If you believe someone has made an incorrect change, you should explain the problem on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Vmakenas reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: Blocked)

    Page:
    User being reported:
    Previous version reverted to:
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. "Undid revision 994217141 by Solavirum (talk)"
    2. "Undid revision 994216846 by Solavirum (talk)"
    3. "Undid revision 994216048 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
    4. ""
    5. ""
    6. ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • "Warning: Three-revert rule on :Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev."
  • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
  • "/* One-sided */"
  • Comments:
    The user keeps replacing a whole article with improperly sourced or entirely unsourced content and doesn't properly discuss the issue in the talk page. — Tb
    hotch
    â„¢ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As I have answered when threatened on my talk page: I’m sorry, but are you serious? You leave a threat for only one side of a disagreement but not the person that is adding unsourced material into an FAC, then using an unreliable source and a source that doesn’t back up what they are claiming? And yet you come to kick the IP editor, not a registered editor. It’s not a great surprise, but they are also edit warring, and they are damaging the article when they do so. What gives, exactly? I will repeat: a registered editor has added unsourced material which I removed. He edit warred it back in. Should it be left there in a featured article? Should we leave it there when he reverted again and added a source that doesn’t show what he claims and an unreliable source? According to Tbhotch, it’s ok to threaten the IP editor for edit warring, but the registered editor, despite their edit warring, doesn’t get the same treatment?
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994633682&oldid=994633351 1st revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&type=revision&diff=994636303&oldid=994634434 2nd revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994637726&oldid=994636963 3rd revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994638781&oldid=994638130 Vandalism (correct and sourced information being deliberately removed.

    Is this appropriate behaviour? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Edit warring "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring." And you are right, John has reverted 3 times now. Therefore I will add a 3rr warn and it's up to them to decide if they want to re-revert you. This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC)
    Tb
    hotch
    User talk:Tbhotchâ„¢ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

    213.205.194.98 has four reverts in 32 minutes, blocked for 72 hours. I'm leaving this open in case anyone wants to take action on the other party, , to whom I'll just say this: it's not OK to edit-war, regardless of the provocation, regardless of who's right, regardless of the exact fiscal number of reverts. Edit-warring is harmful to the project, please just stop doing it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

    ::I'll just say my edits were doing different things: adding text, then adding a ref, then another, then removing the original sentence, which was misleading without the extra stuff I was trying to add, and hardly relevant (concerning events 150 years later). At every stage I was just reverted by the ip. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

    User:EPicmAx4 reported by User:CycloneYoris (Result: Blocked)

    Page:
    User being reported:
    Previous version reverted to:
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. ""
    2. "Undid revision 994645876 by CycloneYoris (talk) You are free to think whatever you want about how active season was, but Wikipedia will not recognize it, so please stop reverting."
    3. "Undid revision 994645492 by CycloneYoris (talk) What other measures are there?"
    4. "Undid revision 994644192 by CycloneYoris (talk) 2017 has 18 storms to the Atlantic's 17 and 2019 had 19 storms to the Atlantic's 18."
    5. "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • "Warning: Three-revert rule on :2020 Pacific hurricane season."
  • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    Comments:
    User has been given a warning for edit warring and has been told to solve this on the article's page but they keep on reverting for no reason. CycloneYoris Paul Erik
    (contribs)
    23:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

    User:wallyfromdilbert reported by User:BazingaFountain42 (Result: )

    Page:
    User being reported:
    Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994512406
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994647761
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994651425
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994652493
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
    Comments:
    Why is concentrating only on that one bio article? He hasn't been making the same reverts at the other Biden nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    It appears a relatively new editor is showing up at the page and an edit war resulted. BazingaFountain42 appears to have made at least 4 reverts just today. Perhaps just lock the article and let the new editor know that once a change has been reverted the next step is the talk page. Springee (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    In this situation though, the new editor was in the right. He was merely lining up the bio article, with the other Biden cabinet nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This article was brought to BLPN where this RfC seemed to have a clear consensus against using "nominee" in the infobox, in favor of either "presumptive nominee" (or similar langauge) or removing the infobox until the nominations are officially made after the inauguration. GoodDay and BazingFountain42 have been edit warring on various pages, which is part of the reason why the one page was brought to BLPN in the first place. In the RfC, only one other person agreed with GoodDay that infoboxes should include a "nominee" status before the nominations are made after the inauguration. Also, despite GoodDay's claims, not all of Biden's future nominees have had their infoboxes updated, including Jennifer Granholm, which was part of a recent ANI thread regarding BazingaFountain42. I believe I did go over 3RR on the Blinken page but there were several intermediary edits by BazingaFountain42 that I reverted because they were clearly vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&diff=994511658&oldid=994511574. I have only reverted 3 times since then, as two of the diffs above are consecutive edits by me. Not sure what BazingaFountain42's reason is for the numerous reverts that included those vandalism edits. – wallyfromdilbert (User talk:Wallyfromdilberttalk) 01:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As I have previously stated, the vandalism was on accident. My computer had a browser extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", and I realized that shortly after and removed the vandalism and corrected the article to have Blinken shown as the nominee. I can't believe I have to say that again. It's incredibly frustrating that you keep bringing that up because I have admitted my mistake, acknowledge the reason for it and am no longer making said mistake. Furthermore, the reason why there was the discussion on whether or not we should have Granholm listed as the nominee was because she hasn't been officially announced yet, whereas Blinken has been officially announced. It wasn't on whether or not we should have her listed as the nominee because Biden hasn't yet been inaugurated. Context is everything. Excluding Granholm (since her nomination has not yet been officially announced by the Biden transition team), literally every single on of Biden's nominees has the position for which they have been nominated and "Nominee" in their infobox. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

    I haven't edited the Blinken article for days, out of frustration with your constant reverts. PS - Granholm has not yet been announced as a cabinet nominee, btw. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

    User:CycloneYoris reported by User:EPicmAx4 (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page:
    User being reported:
    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=994643481‎
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=994644192
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
    Comments:
    EPicmAx4
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. Please note that this report is invalid. As this user was the one that provoked the same edit war that I reported above. CycloneYoris Jezebel's Ponyo
      bons mots
      21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Normchou reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to:
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. "/* Returning to Earth */ Incorrect synthesis; manually revert"
      2. "/* Landing site */ Fixed inaccruate synthesis"
      3. "Undid revision 994603617 by Albertaont (talk) The specific allusion to the Luna 15 and Luna 16 highlights the different roles that robots have played in the previous moon race vs. the current one. It is necessary elaboration for understanding McDonald's conclusion."
      4. "Undid revision 994536527 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
      5. "Undid revision 994535855 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
      Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    • "Warning: Edit warring on :Chang'e 5."
    • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
      Comments:
      Note the two edit summaries dating from around 06:10 UTC today, a blatant disregard of WP:VANDNOT
      VViking
      Edits
      14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I concur that edit warring has happened, but the editor has stopped following the final warning, and appears to be engaging in discussion now. I will have a talk with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, if no one else objects I think this has been taken care of.
      VViking
      Edits
      19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

      *Result: Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:Halbared reported by User:Vpab15 (Result: Withdrawn)

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994751358&oldid=993279238
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994753469&oldid=994751358
      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994780936&oldid=994767229
      3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994814485&oldid=994811373
      4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994793354&oldid=994788092
      5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994818642&oldid=994816775
      6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Northumbria&diff=994855220&oldid=994855009
      Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
      Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Halbared&diff=994854729&oldid=994794490
      Comments:
      Me and other editor tried to engage with Halbared, but he just kept reverting our changes, six times in total. Vpab15 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
      Hi, I've requested arbitration by an admin, shirt58. But I don't mind any admin popping over and advising. I'd like to assume good faith by the above, it just seemed a tad suspicious to request for examples and then edit them.Halbared (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
      I've also requested a look by AmandaNP, I'll abide by any third set of admin eyes, I may have gotten too close.Halbared (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

      Halbared self-reverted and we'll both accept third party opinion. This report can be closed as far as I am concerned. Vpab15 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

      *Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:Hugo.arg reported by User:Ke an (Result: Filer indeffed)

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994863234&oldid=994862471&diffmode=source
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994936889&oldid=994863234
      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939490&oldid=994939423&diffmode=source
      3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939934&oldid=994939750&diffmode=source
      Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
      Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hugo.arg&diff=994940212&oldid=991093625&diffmode=source
      Comments:
      User Hugo.arg keeps malisiouly reverting obvious factual information for no reason. Name KÄ—dainiai is a Lithuanian name, which had transcriptions in other languages. This fact is maliciously and withour arguments deleted. -- Ke an (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
      It is not transcription. Polish and Russian names were OFFICIAL writing forms of Lithuanian settlements prior 1918. Also, they are not a phonetic transcription but rather an adaptation based on Lithuanian pronunciation. Also, by removing them user:Ke an removed notable Jewish people born in KÄ—dainiai. Also, it is worth to notice what User:Ke an is removing other historical (and formerly official) names of Lithuanian settlements although there is a wide practice in Wikipedia to use alternate names (see Lviv, Hradec Kralove) even if they are a product of short lived occupation. In this case, German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries, till 1918, and there standartized only c. 1950. Hugo.arg (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      There were no OFFICIAL toponyms. Lithuania was occupied several times and that doesn't mean the derivative names in other languages were "official". Lithuanian form of KÄ—dainiai recorded at least in 17th century in written form. It should be clearly stated that form in which language is original, but Hug.arg defends a policy of cultural appropriation and places all names in all possible languages as equivalent and "official" and deletes all references to its original Lithuanian form. He executes this practise in his massive edits in almost all Lithuania towns and villages. I see it is a practise with a doubtfull unknown purpose defending point of view that Lithuania toponyms are somehow "invented" or even standartised in 1950 (!). 99 percent toponyms in Lithuania have Lithuanian (Baltic) origins and placing them as derivative or "standartised lately" with recorded forms in other languages is misguiding at least. French, Dutch and Spanish also have derivative names of Lithuanian toponyms and that doens't mean we should stuff everything into the English (particularly English) page. There are pages in the corresponding languages. The statement "German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries" is obviously wrong. Different nations used Lithuanian transcriptions (better or worse) for their needs, but that doens't mean those 3 languages were used especially for Lithuanian toponyms.
      Also, Hugo.arg argues, that he puts toponyms in all possible languages in Wikipedia just beacause it is important for some reasearch he executes and it would be easier to find toponyms for him. I don't understand that selfish approach.
      There is a page on Wikipedia for Lithuanian toponyms and their derivative forms and I think it works perfectly:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Lithuanian_places_in_other_languages
      The practise for putting toponyms in other languages as equivalent or even as "more historical" also violates the laws of Lithuania:
      https://www.eki.ee/knn/ungegn/bd3_ltov.htm
      Regarding the notability - I have removed some representatives with a doubtfull notability (usually very local or notable in narrow communities) not matter their belonging.

      -- Ke an (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
      As far as I am concerned, Ke an got sufficient explanations at the talk page, and, given long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV) it is best to block them, choosing the duration according to the previous blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      , you are supposed to give arguments, not your nationalistic biased view.There is nothing nationalist in my explanations. It is very sad that such persons as Ymblanter, promoting and representing Russian chauvinism in every possible discussion related Lithuania and the Baltis tates are infiltrated into Wikipedia amdinistrators. So my objection to this type of "administrators". They do much harm to WIkipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      : Not sure where you see Russian chauvinism in my edits, but this is one more argument to get you blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      :: Your bias and chauvinism, low discussion ethics disqualifies you from judging states previously occupied by Russia --- Ke an (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      ::: Thank you for your opinion, but I obviously disagree with pretty much every word of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

      any thoughts?
      I see here just a clear promoting of his POV by the user:Ke an - not as it is or was but how it should be ignoring everything, as Lithuania in 1918 would had been created in an empty place. Rather of your stubborn promoting of your POV which will lead nowhere (except to your block) you could expand "etymology" sections for the Lithuanian settlements to prove their Baltic origin. But you are not concerned of scholar things (as I understand your knowledge of comparative and historical linguistics are close to zero) but just about promoting your propaganda which is kind of distorted view to the history imagining that Standard Lithuanian existed from the 10th century. There were, in fact, various dialects and no written form of them till the 19th century. The same toponym could be pronounced differently depending on dialect and even interpretation. During the interwar period and at the early Sovet era there were a long process of "re-Lithuanization" of these toponyms. Even the same toponym often were re-Lithuaized in different ways (ex. at some cases there Lithuanized as "Malinovka", at some cases "translated" as "Avietynė" and at some cases as "Molynė"). Some toponyms were Lithuanized in such way that nobody uses them in spoken language (ex. a local village near Kėdainiai officialy is Paobelys but I heard it pronounced only as Padūbėlė, not counting the dialect forms as Utieka is in fact pronounced only as Ucieka). Russian, Polish and German forms are very useful information for historical linguistics and shoul not be removed just for an aim to run away from own past. Hugo.arg (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Result: The filer, User:Ke an, has been indef blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights for nationalist POV pushing and personal attacks. Action was taken per Ymblanter's complaint at ANI. Given Ke an's statements above, and what appear to be their nationalist edits of the past two days, this action doesn't come as a complete surprise. (They have been removing dozens of Polish names for places in Lithuania, some of whose articles were newly created by Hugo.arg). Ymblanter said (above) 'long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV)' and it's hard to disagree with that assessment. In case anyone is interested, the advice for place names is given in WP:NCPLACE. EdJohnston (User talk:EdJohnstontalk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Renner3774 reported by User:Paul Carpenter (Result: Blocked (partial) 72 hours)

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to:
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. ""
      2. ""
      3. ""
      4. ""
      5. ""
      Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    • "Complete MAT action (RW 16)"
    • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
      Comments:
      This appears to be a single purpose account adding the same POV content with no attempt made at communicating with the editors removing it. A warning about POV edits was given by but ignored. I should also point out that the reverting editor, doesn't appear to have made an attempt to reconcile either, although they are currently just on the right side of the 3RR. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    • . Partial block applied only to the James Renner article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to:
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. "Undid revision 995010578 by DrIdiot (talk) I close the neutrality issue from September 2020 and open the neutrality issue in December 2020. "
      2. "Undid revision 994976359 by DrIdiot (talk) Neutrality section is still open on the talk page"
      3. "Undid revision 994833214 by DrIdiot (talk) see talk- neutrality is disputed"
      4. "Undid revision 994814571 by DrIdiot (talk) Correct- the article is not neutral."
      Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
      Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    • "/* Neutrality is disputed */ ."
    • Comments:
      User has had a prior partial block from the page. From WP:STICK-style posts such as this, the corresponding talk page should be added to the partial block, too.
      Eve
      rgr
      een
      Fir
      (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:Magnovvig reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: )

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995213837&oldid=994352328
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=995212539&oldid=994352328&title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision
      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995212676&oldid=995212539
      3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995212798&oldid=995212676
      4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995212926&oldid=995212798
      5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995213029&oldid=995212926
      6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995213184&oldid=995213029
      7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada&type=revision&diff=995213837&oldid=995213184
      Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magnovvig#Edit-warring_Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada
      Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada#Edit_warring
      Comments:
      Concerned about the neutrality of the page and province-specific issues, I removed certain information and moved information to province-specific pages on COVID-19. User reverted my changes. I admittedly reverted these (which I should not of) and decided to refrain from edit warring and begin a discussion on the talk page. I have notified said user. Page is broken off from a protected page, but Timeline article is not protected. I have recently removed a NPOV notice as well, as some information for example talks of "COVID-19 concentration camps" seems highly contentious. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
      Sorry . My reasoning is contained in my edit summaries, which are available here. I cannot be considered to have started an edit war because, as the material in question has been extant for many days if not months, the one who desires to change the wiki page must bring his/her arguments to the talk page before making changes. Magnovvig (User talk:Magnovvigtalk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

      I don't see where either of you have broken 3RR. However, I do think this is a good time for both of you to discuss the matter on the talk page. That will likely bring in some other voices, so a broader consensus can be reached. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:Samanthaolinn reported by User:Angryskies (Result: )

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derrick_May_(musician)&diff=994440614&oldid=994403678
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derrick_May_(musician)&diff=994980911&oldid=994440614
      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derrick_May_(musician)&diff=994403678&oldid=994079293
      3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derrick_May_(musician)&diff=993278485&oldid=992730191
      4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derrick_May_(musician)&diff=991556230&oldid=990968636
      Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
      Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
      Comments:

      User:152.231.34.214 reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: )

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to:
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. "Just telling the truth, which is considered disruptive these days"
      2. "By telling the truth, which is considered disruptive nowadays"
      Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
      1. "Message re. Midsommar (film) (HG) (3.4.10)"
      2. ""
      Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
      Comments:
      This IP, along with IPs in the same range, has been repeatedly adding the word "coward" to articles related to the Netherlands, and continues to re-add it. JJP...MASTER!User talk:JJPMastertalk to JJP... master? 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:81.129.200.185 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to:
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. "Undid revision 995208330 by Timothy Titus (talk) The edit didn't say christmas was cancelled, the edit said gatherings were cancelled. Please actually read edits before you decide to delete them."
      2. "/* United Kingdom */ simply reverting a change is very lazy editing when you could just make a minor edit to put your preferred summary into improving the initial edit"
      3. "Undid revision 995174203 by NatGertler (talk) the source is the article itself, not the headline, which you would know if you chose to read it"
      4. "Undid revision 995170418 by Timothy Titus (talk) not a tabloid headline, perfectly legitimate phrasing (don't be a snob) from the main newspaper of the main affected area (London)"
      Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    • "Warning: Edit warring on :Christmas controversies."
    • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    • "/* non-controversy Christmas cancelation */ new section"
    • Comments:
      I find this all rather baffling. I edited the article Christmas controversies to include, er, a recent Christmas controversy. At first, this was reverted because my writing was "tabloid style"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversies&diff=995170418&oldid=995169231. So I reverted because my writing seemed perfectly fine and this seemed a rather snobby thing to say (in particular, if you think the language of an edit isn't good enough, why not try *improving* it first, rather than just deleting it?).
      This then got reverted by another editor, who said the problem was that the source was the headline.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversies&diff=995174203&oldid=995171104 So the problem was supposed to be the source itself, not the style. I then reverted again, because (as I explained in my edit) my source wasn't the headline, but the article I linked.
      The same editor then reverted it back, this time explaining that my original edit (which said "cancelled Christmas") was an unfair summary of that article (which, in their words, said "effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings").https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversies&diff=995175627&oldid=995174757 That response (different, or at least, differently explained to the other two reversions) seemed fair enough by me, so I took on board their criticism and edited a new summary that used the literal phrase they chose ("effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings") as part of my new edit instead. I corrected my mistake. I will point out here btw that again it seems like it would've been both friendly and a healthier form of editing if either of these two editors had made this edit themselves, rather than this lazy deletion. I'm not experienced with encyclopaedia editing but I reckon if you want to encourage noobs to join in and improve this place then improving their, often initially faulty, work would be better than just auto-deleting. But that's just my tuppence worth.
      Anyway, I figured that would be that. Criticism taken on board and Wikipedia article improved. But instead, the editor who reverted my very first edit decided to revert this one too.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversies&diff=995208330&oldid=995180687 Let me quote their reasoning in full: "Christmas is not cancelled. Please re-write your edit in appropriate language". This is bizarre. I had already rewritten my edit in "appropriate language" - using the phrasing suggested by another editor! And my new edit didn't say that "Christmas was cancelled". My edit explicitly changed that phrasing and used new, better phrasing. I can only presume this editor, Timothy Titus, didn't bother to read the edit I made before reverting it, and so deleted it without thinking. Either they are gatekeeping the page, or they automatically assume that no lowly anon users can possibly have anything to contribute, or they think that users can't learn and take on board criticisms - which I had done. Either way this seems like bad editing to me.
      Finally, I see this complaint page and see there's a link to a section on the talk page about this, posted by the second editor, which I'd previously been unaware of. This talk page section complains that the source I used doesn't describe it as a controversy. I have three responses to that. 1) It doesn't logically follow - whether or not people support the new restrictions doesn't relate to whether or not it's a controversy (for instance, someone might think they should've happened earlier, or that if other decisions had been made before then the country wouldn't have gotten to the stage of needing to cancel Christmas gatherings). Controversy has a wide meaning and the complaints and worries in the article are part of that. 2) Note that this is now the FOURTH differing objection to my edit that has been made. The editor had made no previous complaint that the source wasn't related to a controversy - they had only said before that the wording wasn't better and I then used their exact wording. I find it hard to feel like I'm being treated in good faith if editors keep finding new reasons that they don't mention before why an edit is bad. I did what they said and that still wasn't good enough. 3) It's just factually wrong - this had been the main story all day with outrage across the political spectrum, and a large controversy for several weeks leading up this. Anyone who is even slightly familiar with UK news and politics knows this. So imagine you're a noob editor who sees a huge controversy in your country and decides to add a brief summary on Wikipedia. You won't necessarily find the perfect source and you might only be able to give a very short description. But the hope would be that other editors would see your summary and feel inspired to flesh it out and/or find better sources. That is, after all, how a collaborative encyclopaedia is supposed to work. So I bring this back to my earlier point - perhaps the source isn't the best one to outline it as a controversy (though see pt 1). Ok, but why should this be brought up on a complaint page here? Surely the response to a well-meaning noob user making a ham-fisted edit is to improve it, find better sources etc, rather than say it should be reverted? Why is deletion the automatic first response of both of these two editors? 81.129.200.185 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
      You seem to assume that it's beholden on other editors not only to clean up your mistakes, but to invest a lot of time into cleaning them up in the way that you most want them cleaned up. That is not the case, you're dealing with volunteers here that are not beholden in any such way. You added a false claim (Christmas being cancelled) on a page where the source you gave did not support its presence. The quickest way to deal with that is to remove it; that doesn't prevent anyone who wished to create accurate and appropriate coverage of the same situation from doing so. Once any block for edit warring is passed, you are welcome - nay, encouraged - to join in on discussion on the talk page. You're apt to find that a better strategy than repeatedly adding content with insults to your fellow editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      I don't believe it's "beholden" on other editors to clean up my mistakes, I merely pointed that *given you have already volunteered to clean up my mistakes* (which is what deleting people's contributions is a form of), it would have been just as easy to change the wording from "cancelled Christmas" to your own(!) suggested phrasing of "effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings" i.e. we're disagreeing over how best to clean up mistakes, not on whether or not you should clean up someone's mistakes. You're welcome to do what you want with your free time lol. Nor does the edit *you suggested* require investing "a lot of time", since to revert my edit you had to literally type in the edit you wanted done in the summary of the edit. If you had requested paragraphs and paragraphs of edits that would be another matter, but you didn't, it was one phrase you yourself typed out.
      As for "You added a false claim (Christmas being cancelled) on a page where the source you gave did not support its presence", you seem to have missed the part where I literally took on board this criticism and re-edited the page to fit the phrasing *you* asked for. It does not explain why this has now gone to some complaint page after the other editor reverted this contribution and why you're still complaining about it. I literally changed the phrasing to the one you asked for and you're still unhappy. Bizarre.

      Finally, not sure I've given any insults unless you mean factual stuff like "snob" - but it is, in fact, kinda snobby and insulting to steam in to call a noob editor's writing tabloid style. Moreover, in general the ever-shifting reasons for deleting my edit (4 differing reasons, as I say above) feels kinda passive aggressive to me. I suggest you pick a reason and stick to it if you don't want to someone to be annoyed at what appears to be gatekeeping. 81.129.200.185 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      : – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:68.228.34.71 (Result: )

      Page:
      User being reported:
      Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted
      Diffs of the user's reverts:
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Winter_Olympics&diff=995027530&oldid=994962666
      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Winter_Olympics&diff=995250482&oldid=995242753
      3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Winter_Olympics&diff=995367880&oldid=995318805
      4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Winter_Olympics&diff=995384901&oldid=995384618
      5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Winter_Olympics&diff=995385519&oldid=995385175
      Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
      Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
      Comments:'
      I've been an avid lurker of Wikipedia for quite sometime as well as a huge fan of the Olympic Games. Recently, an article caught my eye that seemed out of the ordinary in this subtopic. It seems like another user named Stonksboi also felt the same way too a few days prior. However, I was instantly reverted with a reasoning given as "Thats whole lot of misapplied technical knowledge about wikipedia for an IP with no edit history". I'm not sure how am I suppose to respond to that? I've always thought that anyone was welcome to make contributions on this website, and this immediate hostility that had been given by this user was truly disheartening. And so I looked around Wikipedia's policies knowing surely this is out of the ordinary and I came across on the topic of edit-warring. And I'm afraid here I am making a report against this user. 68.228.34.71 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Their original edit summary was "Olympics articles almost never has its controversies slapped on the lead section, it's undue weight. There aren't any for Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020 and if you want a direct comparison, Beijing 2008. What makes this any different? The burden is on you to gather consensus for such an inclusion.” so I’m shocked to see them claim that they only learned about the concept of edit warring or this noticeboard today. This wouldn't be the first dedicated attack account to stack up the reverts and then report me spuriously, heck it wouldn't even be the fourth or fifth... The rest were related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting although I can’t say with any certainly that this one is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Also a discussion was opened on the talk page long before this report, the IP has not participated in it. I’m more than willing to hear them out, but we don’t currently have any sources in the article which backs up the assertion that the calls for boycott are primarily based on any one thing and our current text says the exact opposite with a wide variety of issues being invoked by the heterogeneous groups pushing for a boycott. Horse Eye's Back (User talk:Horse Eye's Backtalk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      :I'm honestly not sure as to why you're doubling down on this, such as calling me an "attack account", when I don't even have an account. All I'm interested is on that one article and the Olympics in general, but you do you I guess... Yes, I also saw that talk page, but you only did that after reverting 5 times in total, including me and that other user, not "long before this report". Like come on dude, the timestamps show it. Last I read it's considered "edit warring" when it has been done more than 3 times on the 4th attempt... 68.228.34.71 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      :And If you wanna talk Olympics, sure. All Olympics since its inception has its controversies. There's never been an Olympics Games where certain individuals or groups want it cancelled or boycotted. I mean heck, the now postponed 2020 Tokyo Olympics is highly controversial too. Even so, an article just a few days ago mentioned that "a majority of Japanese public want Olympics cancelled or postponed" and one a few months back where https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellebruton/2020/06/30/poll-more-than-half-of-tokyo-residents-dont-want-city-to-host-2021-olympics/?sh=39fff055ea46 "More Than Half Of Tokyo Residents Don’t Want City To Host 2021 Olympics". However, it's not on the lead. And don't get me started on Rio 2016...I hope other users understand the point I'm making now... Your continued hostility against me does not sound like wanting to "hear me out". 68.228.34.71 (User talk:68.228.34.71talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      :: Dude you still haven't commented on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

      :::I've already did. Dude chill out, I only have 2 hands, It's only been a few minutes. I also have to say yet again I do not appreciate your comment there accusing me of "pushing the CCP POV". I've mentioned my reasoning of controversies that included other Olympics Games located outside China, such as Brazil and Japan, which were strictly non-political. 68.228.34.71 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

    • You know what... Reviewing the history I F’d up, that is 4 reverts in 24 hours which I hadn’t intended to do. I thought there was a day between Stonksboi and the IP but it looks like less than that. Thats on me, sorry and it won’t happen again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
     
    Comments

    There are no Comments yet




    last seen
    Most vists