Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:46, 21 December 2020

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[-37]
[+2]
[-2]
[-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.

No violation – 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)[reply]

User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Corriganthe3rd (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]
[diff]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

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

Comments:
Nicoljaus, a user who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, is up to his old behavior once again, deleting sources information from both the above mentioned page and the Taras Bulba-Borovets page, a page that he has committed edit warring on and been blocked several times before. He does not attempt to resolve his disputes in a civilized manner on talk pages, and resorts to personal attacks instead. Just so we do not have a further rehash of his past behaviors, I am reporting him here. Thanks.Corriganthe3rd (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is is it weird if I ask why an editor with 42 edits has the concerns that you do? For a brand new editor that has been here for four months, You seem to be very familiar with the editor in question. Beach drifter (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the user after noticing his disruptive behavior on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page. I investigated his block log shortly afterwards. I have no particular interest in him other than that he stop edit warring with me. Corriganthe3rd (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both warned. User:Nicoljaus and User:Corrignthe3rd are both edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EdJohnston. I warned a colleague Corriganthe3rd, but he removed my messaage with the comment Deleted vandalism. He also made statements like this in another article, deleting my text:
Undid vandalism
Undid vandalism
Undid vandalism
Undid edits of disruptive user.

I opened the topic on the article talk page: [5], but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article ([6]), because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solavirum reported by User:PhJ (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [7], [8], [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

--- PhJ (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the user is clearly trying to manipulate the guidelines. See my edit explanations and how PhJ voided discussing this and achieving any kind of a WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I had re-reverted myself about twenty minutes before this request. If anyone needs to be blocked editing, its PhJ, who's been edit warring, avoiding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRDDISCUSS, not even taking a look at my attempts to bring him to the talk page. 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding consensus means, in an article about a conflict, giving all opinions of the parties involved in an appropriate manner. That is what Solavirum refuses to do. He wants to push the Azeris' POV. There were older, more neutral versions of the article, as well as versions tagged with the POV or Multiple Issues template. Reverting to a POV version is edit warring. -- PhJ (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That version was established by Scottywong, an administrator and a third-party editor, and you reverted his edits too. The more neutral versions of the article you're referring to was making the topic look like a terrorist attack and the editor who added that is already blocked for violating the guidelines. What PhJ does is avoiding any kind of a discussion and edit warring. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, this report should be disregarded, as when the report was filed, I had reverted myself twenty minutes ago. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with PhJ, what Sola Virum is doing in that article is clearly POV-pushing, by removing ALL info from Armenian or neutral sources and adding only Azeri or Turkish sources.--HC PUNXKID 14:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not adding any Turkish sources, I've only added BBC article to the article. Secondly, no, I'm telling PhJ to achieve consensus before publishing such controversial edits. He's calling the incident a multiday terrorist attack (which is a laughable claim). In any case, even if your statement was true, this application is still a false flag. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has reverted their 4th revert, meaning they haven't broken WP:3RR, anything else about alleged POV doesn't belong in this noticeboard. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with PhJ, Solavirum seems to have a big POV-pushing problem, simply deleting sources that confirm information he doesn't like. He removed multiple sources on the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article of Arayik Harutyunyan saying Azerbaijan was targeting civilians in the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, his reason simply being "happened right after first attack" even though the bombardment took place a week later. When @Sataralynd: added it back saying this is key information, Solavirum again removed it, saying "has no place in the background". He tried removing it again as it was being discussed on the talk page, and when Sataralynd there was no consensus for removing it and this violates NPOV, Solavirum didn't even bother to explain his continued edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were added without any kind of a consensus. We reached a consensus. And its there, though with additional information necessary to show that Artsakh authorities saying that they were afraid that even archaeologists will not be able to find the place of Ganja. However, is this even related to this application? --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Solavirum has a very different understanding of "consensus" than general people in a democratic country. In the case of this article, the Ganja article and other article where Solavirum is "working" on, there is clearly NO consensus on the statements Solavirum is placing in the WP articles. -- PhJ (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 3 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:213.205.194.98 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

User being reported: 213.205.194.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994638781 by Johnbod (talk) Why remove correct and sourced information? I know IP editors are not welcome here, but the ethos of “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” still lives with some of us"
19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994637726 by Johnbod (talk) No, I am not that editor: I am an IP editor. Looking at the two references you have added, p233 of the work makes no mention of this (ie. fails verification); the second is not a reliable source. If you do find reliable sources to back up rampion, I think you should respect CITEVAR and add any references in the consistent formatting"
19:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Please follow WP:CITEVAR and use the same formatting as the rest of the article. As a featured work, it should have the basics correct"
19:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994633682 by Johnbod (talk) as already mentioned, please find a source - you can’t add things without a proper reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Beer Flood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No one, not me, the edit-warring registered editor, or this person leaving one-sided threats, has opened a thread. And I’m the one who is up to be blocked? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Requested full-protection at RFPP minutes before the 3rd and 4th revert happened. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994633682&oldid=994633351 1st revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&type=revision&diff=994636303&oldid=994634434 2nd revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994637726&oldid=994636963 3rd revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

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. [15] This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, Johnbod, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User being reported: EPicmAx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
20:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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."
20:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994645492 by CycloneYoris (talk) What other measures are there?"
19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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."
19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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 ^talk! 20:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the editor in question also tried to revert again under an IP address to try and get their way. The editor has also removed all warnings, and the ANI notification on their talk-page. The user is however, attempting to discuss the edit warring on the appropriate talk page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. This user also appears to be reverting while logged out. If that continues they could be risking a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:
Why is @Wallyfromdilbert: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Springee: 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)[reply]

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: [16] [17]. 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 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[19]
[diff]
[diff]
[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 ^talk! 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CycloneYoris, the report is not invalid. Please keep WP:3RR in mind; see WP:DISCFAIL for an essay that may be very helpful in such situations.
Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Normchou reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Returning to Earth */ Incorrect synthesis; manually revert"
19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Landing site */ Fixed inaccruate synthesis"
16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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."
06:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994536527 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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:

22:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "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 CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Normchou#December_2020, [20] for my conversation with @CaradhrasAiguo: who created this report. I believe this act of that user was done in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM principle: The focus of this report is your crossing of the 3RR red line, not anything else. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually wrong. See WP:SHOT#There is no "immunity" for reporters. Normchou (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay particular attention to the timestamps in my talk page. This report was created right after that user made a number of accusations against me, but none of them were related to the discussion of a potential edit war. I believe they are acting in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting user's allusion to WP:NOTTHEM above is deemed inappropriate. The block (should there be one) has not yet occurred, and I am not requesting an unblock here. Once again, if one pays attention to the timestamps, including those of the diffs and this complaint, it would be evident that a block is unnecessary. Normchou (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Normchou (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide conclusive evidence that either CaradhrasAiguo or myself is acting in bad faith, pretty serious allegation here. Albertaont (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion of acting in bad faith is only pertinent to the reporting user. "That user" merely refers to the user who filed this complaint. Normchou (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reality there are different weights of evidence rather than the dichotomy of "conclusive" vs. "inconclusive", which could mean different things to different people anyway. Regarding this specific matter, some of the evidence has already been supplemented in the above thread as well as on my user talk page. It is up to the admin to decide the weight of evidence. Normchou (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sexismcorrector23 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Withdrawn)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Multiple users have Warned this editor, and the editor reverted immediately after they were warned. VViking_TalkEdits 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, if no one else objects I think this has been taken care of. VViking_TalkEdits 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] and [36]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994863234&oldid=994862471&diffmode=source

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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 Kėdainiai 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)[reply]

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 Kėdainiai. 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)[reply]

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 Kėdainiai 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ymblanter: 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)[reply]

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

@Renata3: 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. Template:Lang-pl 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)[reply]

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 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Renner3774 reported by User:Paul Carpenter (Result: Blocked (partial) 72 hours)

User being reported: Renner3774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "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 C.Fred but ignored. I should also point out that the reverting editor, CaraDino 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)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Partial block applied only to the James Renner article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995010578 by DrIdiot (talk) I close the neutrality issue from September 2020 and open the neutrality issue in December 2020. {{POV|date=December 2020}}"
16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994976359 by DrIdiot (talk) Neutrality section is still open on the talk page"
23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994833214 by DrIdiot (talk) see talk- neutrality is disputed"
19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "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:

23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "/* 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. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Geographyinitiative to agree to stop his long-term fight about the simplified characters in Democratic Progressive Party. If he won't agree to stop, I think an indefinite block should be considered. If you have any hope this will get resolved otherwise take a look at his recent comments in Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#Neutrality is disputed. It seems that nothing whatever will suffice to change his mind on this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Indef. Given his response to my final offer it is clear that Geographyinitiative is never going to stop. Editors have also requested admin action about Geographyinitiative at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:31.127.148.247 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&oldid=995030617

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnooganssnoogans&type=revision&diff=995038395&oldid=994856612

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995030568 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995034397

Comments:

I've pointed out that a strong claim in the article isn't supported by the articles cited, and changed the language to be more tentative. Snooganssnoogans is repeatedly and aggressively reverting my change without engaging properly on the talk page (despite multiple invitations to discuss).

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.. Based on the discussion, the IP editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page rather than attempting to force through a change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that the "three-revert rule" applies, so the judgment isn't useful. Isn't this page about edit warring, not the "three-revert rule"?

User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Pasdecomplot (Result:Declined )

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

Previous versions by reporter: reporter's version before reverts

reporter's version before reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[37]
[38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Would rather not bring the issue to AN, but RfC would not be a viable forum. The user's first revert's edit summary does not accurately describe the revert nor the RS. The second revert by user was performed before user replied at either of the two talk discussions, after being asked to bring the issues to both talks [40]. Please note that while this AN was being prepared, the user finally went to talk, but with statements which either don't address the reverts, or question RS, apparently based on their opinion. I'd add that ASPIRE applies to the reply at talk. Thanks for any help you can give. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An instant WP:BOOMERANG for the reporter is in order, based on the apparently based on their opinion remark alone, a violation of their editing restriction to not comment on the motivations of other editors outside of WP:AN/I, as formally logged by @Barkeep49: and proposed by @Valereee:. Not only are they barely 24 hours off a month-long block and off to reverting (1K bytes+: 1, 2), but a few days before the block, was caught distorting the source wording. PdC's refusal to acknowledge RS\N input on their advocacy sources, which is to be applied to Tibetan Political Review, is a clear long-term WP:IDHT conduct, as is the brazen attempt (see last diff) to pass Warren W. Smith as a historian writing at Tibetan Political Review, to obscure Smith's Radio Free Asia affiliation.

Not only is the report frivolous, the timeline suggested while this AN was being prepared is false as well. My initial talk page post in response occurred at 23:22, whereas PdC's latest revert occurred at 23:23. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I see both parties have started a talk page discussion. That's good. More of that and less of discussion through edit summaries please. Also I see no violation of the editing restriction the filing party is under at this point. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response below was being prepared as Barkeep49 decided to decline:

This is AN.
The subject is Nyingchi.
The talk discussions are factual and indicate this AN is definitely not "frivolous".
Multiple APERSIONS are unfounded.
RSNB discussion is being honored, even though the closing clearly states each source needs to be presented individually for separate discussions. That's why Tibetan Review and Tibetan Political Review are the RS.
I know nothing about the author Smith's alleged affiliations with other media outlets. Tibetan Political Review is the RS, thus the characterization of "brazen attempt" and 'IDHT conduct" is not based on WP:AOGF.
The "Tourism" talk discussion was posted hours before the 1st revert. No pings to me were made on either talk, and the 2nd revert was immediately after notice was given of both talks.
The RS fully supports the edits, whereas the reasons for the reverts given in the edit summaries are definitely misleading.
My original edits from more than a month ago have been re-edited since. Thus, I haven't been "caught distorting the source wording". For example, the RS in "Tourism" isn't from Radio Free Asia, yet someone added it as a link. In fact, I corrected misleading editing today on the political re-education RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss content so much of that response is better served on the article talk page than here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reopen the AN and have an uninvolved administrator review it, Barkeep49. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained when you asked I responded mainly to decline the idea that you had violated your editing restriction and I am an uninvolved administrator. I have only interacted with you in an administrative role and so I am uninvolved per our policy on involved/uninvolved. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: TranscendentMe reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46][47]

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

Comments:

New editor is refusing to discuss a ~3,200 byte section removal, edit warring instead and they are at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995185872 by Bonadea (talk)"
18:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995183569 by Bonadea (talk)"
17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995179343 by Denisarona (talk)"
17:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995176772 by Acroterion (talk)"
17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995170228 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "cmt"
18:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Matt Mowers."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) on User talk:PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! "cmt"

Comments:

Brand-new account creating an unsourced, poorly written BLP on a redirect page, and ignoring all advice about creating a draft. Warning about edit warring after their third revert, 3RR warning after the fourth revert, but since they reverted again, I'm reporting them here. bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked by Acroterion for 48 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

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)[reply]

Sorry CaffeinAddict. 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 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig and CaffeinAddict: 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)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

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; User:Samanthaolinn is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. At first glance, the sexual assault allegations against Derrick May seem to be reliably sourced. (The Guardian is not considered a tabloid). See WP:BLP for your appeal options if you believe the material doesn't belong in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 152.231.34.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC) "Just telling the truth, which is considered disruptive these days"
21:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "By telling the truth, which is considered disruptive nowadays"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC) "Message re. Midsommar (film) (HG) (3.4.10)"
00:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC) ""

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!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: IP blocked three months. Most likely this is the same Nicaraguan vandal as was previously blocked six months by User:Materialscientist. See 186.77.201.54. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 81.129.200.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC) "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."
17:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "/* 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"
17:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "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"
16:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "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:

17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Christmas controversies."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "/* 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"[63]. 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.[64] 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").[65] 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.[66] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also a discussion was opened on the talk page [72] 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 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 "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 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thank you! I look forward to finding an outcome we can both live with on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Result: No action, since User:Horse Eye's Back has apologized and has undone their last change. I hope that editors will join in the thread at Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Changes to the last sentence of the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lionel del Rosario reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Persistent addition of unsourced content and original research. KyleJoan^talk 06:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 400: / Line 400: @@
 *{{AN3|nve}}. Based on the discussion, the IP editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page rather than attempting to force through a change. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 01:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: I'm not claiming that the "three-revert rule" applies, so the judgment isn't useful.  Isn't this page about edit warring, not the "three-revert rule"?
 ==[[User:CaradhrasAiguo]] reported by [[User:Pasdecomplot]] (Result:Declined ) ==

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