Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 353: | Line 353: | ||
:{{AN3|p}} – 3 days. Try to get agreement on the talk page. In the past, [[User:Khirurg]] and [[User:O.celebi]] have participated on this article and perhaps you can get them to give their opinions. If the war between Selçuk Denizli and AntonSamuel keeps on going then blocks are likely. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) |
:{{AN3|p}} – 3 days. Try to get agreement on the talk page. In the past, [[User:Khirurg]] and [[User:O.celebi]] have participated on this article and perhaps you can get them to give their opinions. If the war between Selçuk Denizli and AntonSamuel keeps on going then blocks are likely. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Elephanthunter]] reported by [[User:DBigXray]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Elephanthunter]] reported by [[User:DBigXray]] (Result: Self-revert) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Khalistan movement}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Khalistan movement}} <br /> |
||
Line 406: | Line 406: | ||
:::Self-revert here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalistan_movement&type=revision&diff=854385613&oldid=854373851] --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::Self-revert here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalistan_movement&type=revision&diff=854385613&oldid=854373851] --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' No action due to Elephanthunter's self-revert. (Independent of this I've semiprotected the article due to sock editing). I hope that Elephanthunter and DBigXray will find a way to work together or agree on a method of dispute resolution. Otherwise more drastic action may be needed. For example, they could both be banned from the topic under [[WP:ARBIPA]]. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive371#User:DBigXray_reported_by_User:Elephanthunter_(Result:_Page_protected) a previous AN3 report of a dispute between these editors]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:NotImpressedWithWikiLibel]] reported by [[User:Funplussmart]] (Result: Indef) == |
== [[User:NotImpressedWithWikiLibel]] reported by [[User:Funplussmart]] (Result: Indef) == |
Revision as of 04:44, 11 August 2018
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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
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. |
User:Nunodeep reported by User:XYZtSpace (Result: Protected, then unprotected)
- Page
- Nuno Gomes (diver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Nunodeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 23:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nuno Gomes (diver). (TW)"
- 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "COI notice"
- 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
- 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "3rd warning"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 23:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Reverting unsourced edits */ new section"
- Comments:
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully protected for a week. That looks more like an edit war between both parties with 5 or 6 reverts each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's the wrong approach. This is not a "content dispute", but a behavioural matter, where one party has been breaching our sourcing policies. Nunodeep has been removing sourced content and replacing it with his own commentary. XYZtSpace has only been restoring the prior, stable, consensus version of the article. Please remove full protection as other editors wish to do maintenance work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding reverts by the other editor. Isn't that allowed under WP:3RRBLP. Nunodeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits are unsourced additions to an article on a living person. Work permit (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:CambridgeBayWeather undid their own protection per a request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Knson3 reported by User:1l2l3k (Result: Blocked one month)
Page: Strobus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and also see notification with the AN3-notice. Continued also with this
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Comments: Came to this page doing New Page patrolling. When a redirect is lifted, the page comes up automatically in the New Pages Feed. This is the case here: while reviewing, I saw that the redirect had been lifted, but the article was not expanded, so brought the redirect back, as I cannot mark "reviewed" and pass as such in enwiki an empty page (only an unsourced infobox appears), but the user keeps reverting with no reason, and does not communicate. They even reverted my final warning, again with no communication. The user is also doing the same thing in other articles such as this and I really don't know how to get them to communicate. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The user is creating incomplete pages on subdivisions of the genus Pinus (subgenera, sections, subsections), and he or she does not respond to reverts with edit summaries explaining the problem with these articles (for instance, by Galobtter) except by reverting. In most cases this has not reached three reverts yet. He or she is also changing many of the redirects that point to anchors in List of Pinus species (Pinus subgenus Strobus, for instance) to go to these new incomplete pages. So many incoming links from taxoboxes and elsewhere will go to these incomplete pages rather than to List of Pinus species, and quite a lot of cleanup will be needed to fix the situation once the user is dealt with. — Eru·tuon 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 month. User was recently blocked 24 hours per another edit warring report. Then they came back to do more of the same thing. Any admin may lift this block if Knson3 will agree to wait for consensus before continuing. As Erutuon observes, it will take some time to undo the mass changes if editors agree they are not appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:184.101.195.188 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Semi)
- Page
- 2018 in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 184.101.195.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853909300 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Pushing fake news."
- 18:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"
- 06:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"
- 04:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit warring continued on 04:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC) after notification of report here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- And at 19:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC). 3 different users and one bot have reverted them so far.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected five days by EdJohnston. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Gargaroi reported by User:Filiprino (Result: Page EC protected)
Page: Societat Civil Catalana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gargaroi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]
Comments:
- This user has been blocked by editing the same article on April 13th. I reported him that time too. I have stopped trying to talk with him because he only says random things without any proof nor quotes, blatantly ignoring sourced content (in fact, he removed sources in the past). I suspect he might have a WP:COI or be a WP:SPA as he is only editing that article. He might be a sockpuppet, as that article has been edited by many socks from this two sockpuppet investigations: [19], [20]. I have reported Gargaroi in the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard too: [21].
- If you take a look at the article, you will find Manlorsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doing reverts too. He has been blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion. Other editors found he has a COI. He himself states he belongs to Societat Civil Catalana. Both Gargaroi and Manlorsen do edits with similar fashion. Filiprino (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana manlorsen tries to begin with an neutral version and based on this version build a correct version. Filiprino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tries to link Sociedad Civil Catalana to the far right. He brings only sources of very unknown newspapers of far left tendency to proof his assumptions. I will bring a clear proof that Sociedad Civil Catalana cannot be linked to the far right: How should this organisation receive a prize from the european parlament European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana or the socialist foreign minister Joseph Borrell [[22]] participated in several events of the organisation Speech delivered by Josep Borrell on 29th October 2017, Barcelona or Francisco Frutos, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain participated also in these events [https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/francisco-frutos-speech-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ Francisco Frutos’ Speech on 29th October 2017, Barcelona. Please I would kindly ask to check all this facts and afterwards you will see that the article Societat_Civil_Catalana at the moment is very biased
- I noticed this edit war when Gargaroi requested the article be protected on WP:RFPP as I was clearing the backlog. I've extended-confirmed protected the page for a month which should help with all the single purpose accounts. Fish+Karate 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Filiprino reported by User:Gargaroi (Result: No action)
User Filiprino has been also blocked in the past as he/she constantly attempts to subverts other users' edits. User Filiprino's only purpose is to discredit the association SCC and he uses unverified sources and presents opinion and judgement from biased sources as evidence. I suggest he's permanently blocked from editing this entry.
- Result: Closing with no action against User:Filiprino since the edit war was handled by protection in another report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Boccadasse reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Blocked)
Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boccadasse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [24] Calls it "deleting my additions" -edit removes sourced content I added to the cuisine section, restores content that is unsupported by RS in several places, and other content that has been challenged on the talk page.
- [25]
- [26]
- [27]
This isn't a 3RR case. There have been multiple attempts to discuss on the talk page that have gone unanswered, including a request from Ivanvector yesterday. It seems the reverting and massive undiscussed changes are likely to continue without intervention.
My rewrite sourced the etymology to OED and the reasons were explained in detail on the talk page. The editor refers to it as "my content" in his edit summary even though it was added in October 2017 by User:JimPody during a period when the article experienced significant disruption. [28]. There was a discussion at the time about undiscussed massive changes to a GA article that several regular editors commented on [29].
There have been other changes also effecting content that has already been discussed in detail on the talk page with the regular editors at the article and other unrelated sourced content.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] - there are multiple attempts to discuss on the article talk page, but this is last comment from Ivanvector before the most recent reverts.
Comments:
- Blocked – 48 hours. Unclear what their intention is. User has made many large changes since August 2 and never waits for the result of any discussions. This article has been the subject of edit warring in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Abelmoschus Esculentus reported by User:2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (Result: Filer warned)
- Page: Olaf the White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Abelmoschus Esculentus - is preventing editing of articles. Also creating articles without cited evidence for infor within. When edited and asked for evidence responds by threatening to bar user from editing and referring to reasoanble editing (comments added in brackets) as vandalism. The articles are not evidence based in their entirity. Surely the point of wikipedia is to allow editing and comment not to block it and threaten those who attempt to edit. If Abelmoschus Esculentus cannot accept other opinions they should not either post on wikipedia or be allowed to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (talk • contribs)
- Please see User_talk:Abelmoschus_Esculentus#Do_not_need_a_response_but and below and check this IP's contrib. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wait... I only reverted two times. How am I violating WP:3RR?? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Filer warned. Blanking the page at Olaf the White is considered vandalism and is blockable. When you disagree with article content, either open a discussion on the article talk page or, if you are confident of your changes and believe you have consensus, edit the article itself. Adding commentary into the article text is peculiar and is going to be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Foolsandkings reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Filer warned per WP:COI)
- Page
- Lora (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Foolsandkings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854018462 by Kpgjhpjm (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC) to 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- 11:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "profile image"
- 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "info about the artist"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Possible violation of 3RR regarding to WP:BLP. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Result: – User:Foolsandkings is warned for WP:COI editing. Per their comment here, it appears that Foolsandkings is a representative of Lora's music label. If you believe the article should be changed. don't make the edit directly but use the article talk page to explain what you think should be done. Use WP:Reliable sources in your request when you want factual changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:2405:204:6118:6946:4d6a:28c0:255a:8fce reported by User:Meyerscale (Result: Semi)
Page: 2018 in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2405:204:6118:6946:4d6a:28c0:255a:8fce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Result: Page semiprotected five days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:110.145.188.158 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Semi, Block)
Page: Sanjay Dutt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.145.188.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:28, 9 August 2018
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sanjay_Dutt#New_Images_and_more_content_needs_to_be_added and User_talk:110.145.188.158#August_2018
Comments:
This ip is very likely being used by is making edits that are almost exactly like those of Sheldonlove12 (talk · contribs), who has also been edit-warring over the same content, who was also given a formal edit-warring warning. This is continued edit-warring after page protection has been lifted. Ronz (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
aren't you edit warring? and no this user is not me, that is a very mean accusationSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've refactored, noting that your edits are indistinguishable.
- I suggest you read the comments in the discussions to learn about the strict requirements of WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
they are indistinguishable? maybe because it takes one undo key? to undo an edit, how is that an argument? ridiculousSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC) anyway the problem is solved now, so lets not fightSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The IP is has a history of edit-warring on this article in their own right, even if we don't consider Sheldonlove12's edits included, and was previously warned about it. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two months. The reported IP was clearly warring, and User:Sheldonlove12 was continuing the previous war for which they were sanctioned by User:DMacks on 1 August. The semiprotection will prevent the IP from continuing the war. Sheldonlove12 is blocked four days. It is uncertain whether Sheldonlove12 and the IP are the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:BOLO 97 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: BOLO 97 blocked)
Page: Paul Manafort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BOLO 97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Collapsing part of a long report to save space on the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comments: Obviously not a new account and obviously the edits from 2013 weren't their only ones. Based on those 2013 edits, I'm guessing it's the same person as a series of accounts, one of which was this one, though that was so long ago I have no idea what that was about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: BOLO 97 is now up to 8 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: AlexOvShaolin is now up to 7 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
|
This is interesting, with good people on both sides (see what I did there?). First good people is Mr Ernie for this edit, which is perfectly in line with policy and practice. Second good people is, surprise! Marek, who as things are getting exciting makes this edit--a revert basically to Mr Ernie's version, or at least an edit that does not reinstate the mugshot. (I assume Marek had read the talk page, and while voting to keep the mugshot must have taken in comments by Mr Ernie, Cullen328, 331dot, and maybe others.) There's also not good people, and I am going to block BOLO. But first I have to note that User:AlexOvShaolin would have gotten a block had they been warned earlier about edit warring. I cannot find evidence that they were ever warned before or participated in an ANEW discussion, and while this is a technicality, it's an important one. They'll know for next time--they thoroughly deserve one. (Note that I lost count with the reverts; I stopped early on when I had BOLO at six and Alex at five--and VM at one (1).) Alex also needs to know that next time they drop a personal attack like this they deserve a block. And don't falsely accuse others of vandalism please.
As for BOLO, they were edit warring to a ridiculous extent (warned by MelanieN on 5 August), and combined with the other problems (false accusations of socking, vandalism, other personal attacks, etc.) they deserve a block. Sarek blocked for 12 hours for the personal attack, but the disruption in the mugshot matter, which they indeed started and with the help of Alex brought to a ridiculous height, went on for what, three days, so I'm upping the block to three days. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Jakefighter09 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- 6ix9ine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jakefighter09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 19:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 18:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- 14:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on 6ix9ine. (TW)"
- First blanking warning
- Other user level 3 disruptive editing
- Other user EW warning
- Other user level 4 EW warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has removed material from lead 6 times over the past few days and inserted unsourced info into a controversial BLP repeatedly. No interaction from user after repeated warnings. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
User:AntonSamuel reported by User:Selçuk Denizli (Result: Page protected)
Page: Syrian Turkmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AntonSamuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 23:03, 9 August 2018
- diff 08:57, 10 August 2018
- diff 12:31, 10 August 2018
- diff 16:07, 10 August 2018
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt
Comments:
Many academic sources and crucial information has been removed or, incorrectly, reinterpreted. My edits have been reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- This issue revolves around a page that has had many disputes and non-neutral editing and that I've been moderating for a while. As I informed Selçuk Denizli on the talk page, I removed no crucial information, kept most sources in my edit and merely made a problematic section more compact and readable, while he continously reverted my edits without discussing the matter on the talk page first. I warned him that I would report him for edit-warring if he continued and I guess he wanted to beat me to it. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is not fair that you're trying to monopolize the article. I was reducing the section as you requested. It is not right for you to delete everything just because you feel like it. I have been discussing the issue on the talk page since 31st July, you only arrived there today. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The relevant section has been discussed on the talk page for quite a while, going back a couple of months, in which I have been taking part. I certainly don't delete things because I "feel like it" or claim monopoly over the article, but since there has been so much disruptive editing I've kept a closer look at the article and do my best to prevent disruptive editing and try to help maintaining the rules (such as discussing on the talk page before reverting well-motivated changes from registred users first). AntonSamuel (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like User:AntonSamuel and User:Selçuk Denizli have both broken WP:3RR. Can you respond and explain why you should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was restoring the article back because AntonSamuel deleted a significant amount of the section. When AntonSamuel threatened to report me I googled "wikipedia report for edit-warring" and saw the rules about reporting the 3RR rule. Then I stopped editing on the article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, neither of us have made more than 3 reverts, Selçuk Denizli included my original edit that he then reverted 3 times as a revert. I believe I have motivated the fairness of my edit enough both here and on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- But you deleted so much information without discussion. And then you told me not to edit until I discuss it! That is monopolizing the article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is not fair that you're trying to monopolize the article. I was reducing the section as you requested. It is not right for you to delete everything just because you feel like it. I have been discussing the issue on the talk page since 31st July, you only arrived there today. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days. Try to get agreement on the talk page. In the past, User:Khirurg and User:O.celebi have participated on this article and perhaps you can get them to give their opinions. If the war between Selçuk Denizli and AntonSamuel keeps on going then blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Self-revert)
Page: Khalistan movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 21:47, 4 July 2018
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:30, 11 August 2018
Diff of offering him a chance to self revert to prevent 3RR violation per AGF link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
After his initial revert, and his comment on my talk page. I invited him to provide his constructive suggestion if he finds any of my edit in dispute. but The User was only interested in editwarring and disruptive behavior to stonewall any improvements of the article, falsely claiming Status Quo.
WP:CIR : He is even editwarring [47][48] [49] with the RFC BOT on the article Talk page to keep the expired RFC tag on talk page.
I initiated discussion on the talk page [50] but he did not participate in the discussion or point his disagreements and continued with edit war and commented only after breaking the 3RR.
I assumed good faith and even offered[51] him a chance to avoid 3RR violation by doing a self revert but he rejected[52] my suggestion.
He falsely Claims to justify his editwar and 3RR violation to restore the DISPUTED LEAD SECTION (currently under RFC). The RFC is already expired with clear consensus and I have requested a closure of RFC but it is pending a Formal closure by Admin. Per WP:RFC closure rules and my understanding of the Consensus of the expired RFC (that even involved parties can update) I updated the content in the article based on the consensus. But I was reverted by him. After the first revert on the article by EH, I decided to "drop the stick" on the content related to the RFC dispute until the RFC section is formally closed by an admin. After his first rvert I self reverted myself [53] and restored the content of the Last para of the lead as written by ElephantHunter (before the article was locked). So his claim that I am repeatedly restoring my version of RFC paragraph is completely baseless.
There are some WP:CIR issues. 2 other editors tried to reason out with him at User_talk:Elephanthunter#NOCON and at Talk:Khalistan_movement#Suggestions_to_improve_the_article but he continued his WP:BATTLE and confrontational behavior.
By editwarring he is stonewalling any attempts of improving this article which has poor sources and repeated content. He believes that any improvement to the article has to be discussed on talk page first. But he himself abandoned a discussion as you can see on Talk:Khalistan_movement#Protected_edit_request_on_4_July_2018 and never bothered to respond to the thread in past 35 days, While the article was locked. I tried to improve the article in June, and he disrupted and the article was locked for 1 month. Now again it is being repeated.
Anyway, Content dispute aside, Since this is a clear disruptive behavior and a repeated violation of 3RR since he has already received a 3RR block in past (for stonewalling, WP:IDHT and disruption)[54]. Fresh Action is warranted. DBigXray 22:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Response from Elephanthunter: This article was edit-restricted until earlier this month because of the edit war DBigXray and I went through previously. Instead of avoiding confrontation by discussing his changes related to the RfC (or waiting for a third party to come in and close the RfC), the user took an opportunity once the article was unrestricted to remove large amounts of content critical of India. This included reducing Sikh death counts, removing controversies related to the interstate river dispute, and removing references to Khalistan activity in Punjab, India, and placing his own edit summary from the RfC in the header. The changes removed a total of over 19,000 characters, in an article that is tagged as controversial, and where users are encouraged to encouraged to discuss major changes if they are contested. Given our past confrontation over this article I would just prefer if this user discussed making such large changes before making them.
I attempted to restore the RfC tag on the talk page, but admittedly I did so incorrectly. Once. I'm not "edit warring the RfC bot" . That's a silly claim. Anyway my mistake. May have added to the confusion, and I apologize for that.
The only users reverting in this article in the last 24 hours were myself and DBigXray. He clearly also edit warring [55] [56] [57] And yeah, I didn't bother posting (yet another) warning on the user's page. I've already done so for Khalistan movement right before it was locked down, and the user should know better. We're both experienced editors and knew what was going on.
As Gazoth pointed out, it was too early to close the RfC and start adjusting the summary.
Also, my edit war from years ago does not reflect my current opinion and should not have any bearing on the decision, as it is entirely unrelated. DBigXray is grasping at straws here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Admins, other than WP:3RR, WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE issues I pointed above, Please also notice the clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues in his reply above [58] --DBigXray 23:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? The user who removed 19,000 characters and rewrote the entire article is claiming that I have "clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues"? I'm just asking that you 1) Wait for the RfC to close before making changes related to that and 2) discuss other major changes first. It's a controversial article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Self-revert here: [59] --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Result: No action due to Elephanthunter's self-revert. (Independent of this I've semiprotected the article due to sock editing). I hope that Elephanthunter and DBigXray will find a way to work together or agree on a method of dispute resolution. Otherwise more drastic action may be needed. For example, they could both be banned from the topic under WP:ARBIPA. See a previous AN3 report of a dispute between these editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
User:NotImpressedWithWikiLibel reported by User:Funplussmart (Result: Indef)
- Page
- Gavin McInnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Nothing remotely neutral or accurate here."
- 00:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Revert again, no defense has been offered on talk page"
- 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Revert vandalism"
- 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Religion */ Removing literal libel. Will contact subject of article so he can sue Wikimedia Foundation if you revert this edit."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 00:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NotImpressedWithWikiLibel: The information you are removing is backed up by reliable sources. If they wern't then you'd have a reason to remove them. (TW)"
- Comments:
Funplussmart has repeatedly removed comments on the talk page he doesn't like. He's been given a 3RR warning but doesn't take the point. We may need to ban his account for good. NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Not that it matters at all to you, but BLP was instituted to protect the Wikimedia Foundation. Glad to see Wikipedia's terminal decline proceeding so rapidly. NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then bring the issue up over there, or on the article talk page. Stop making legal threats and attacking others. funplussmart (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did. You removed my comments from the talk page twice. Do you understand that other users can see talk page post history? NotImpressedWithWikiLibel (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
NIWWL blocked indefinitely, since he's clearly not here help. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
User:2405:204:669B:6925:D43A:2CD3:5441:B39B reported by User:Appadammm (Result: Blocked)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
(Appadammm (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC))
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Reverted 4 times in 24 hours:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This IP belongs to user:Bonadeaphone, a disruptive editor and sock of user:Bonadae
- Blocked – 31 hours by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)