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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:32, 12 June 2024

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)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Rahio1234 reported by User:Ergzay (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Rahio1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk): You are now edit warring"
11:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227579564 by Ergzay (talk) Stop now. You will be blocked from editing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."
10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */"
11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Buster Bubbles (Arcade)."
11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted comments put on others talk pages and then deleted warnings added to their talk page and placed warnings on to my own talk page for restoring comments that they were deleting. Ergzay (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further they broke rules on deleting other people's comments on talk pages that are not their own. Ergzay (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has now additionally reported me here as well despite previous incidents where they fail to communicate and have been previously warned over misuse of this notice board. Ergzay (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User reverted my edits. Rahio 1234 11:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have significant problems, Rahio1234 with competence and Ergzay with a campaign to get Rahio1234 blocked that includes repeated personal attacks. I advised Ergzay a while ago that they need to put their complaints about Rahio1234 in the proper context in the appropriate venue, which would be WP:ANI. Instead,Ergzay is using backdoors to do so. Meanwhile, the nomination of the draft by Rahio1234 for lack of notability is one more indication that they are likely not a net asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bbb23 - I agree about User:Rahio1234 but will add a comment. Nominating drafts at MFD for lack of notability is a relatively common error that appears to indicate an inexperienced reviewer who has more enthusiasm than knowledge or common sense. I asked User:Rahio1234 why they nominated the draft, because I was wondering if better instructions for reviewers are needed to avoid this waste of time at MFD. User:Ergzay tried to answer my question, attacking Rahio1234, and was reverted twice. I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI, and will also be expecting more misguided nominations to delete drafts, and asking the nominators why they are making the nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Can you clarify what you mean by "I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI"? I don't quite follow. Is that a suggestion that I should create a report at WP:ANI immediately and that you want to engage in that discussion? Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ergzay. I am not asking you to create a report anywhere. Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report Rahio1234. When I look at WP:ANI, one of the things that I will look for, if I remember, will be a report about Rahio1234. Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be reading between the lines here given your wording. However as I stated in my other comment, I'll hold off writing a report at WP:ANI until I see additional problematic behavior. There is hope that Rahio1234 may change. Ergzay (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Can you point to where you previously advised me? I have not seen any warning regarding this directed toward me. Checking the previous conversation shows no warning directed at me. Are you sure you advised me? Ergzay (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll take this statement itself as advice to avoid personal attacks. I'll keep an eye on Rahio1234 and report them to WP:ANI if they continue their behavior. Ergzay (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergzay: I can't find anywhere I warned you, either. I know I thought it, but that doesn't count for much, my apologies. Thanks for taking the advice/warning to heart. I think your plan is sound.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ergzay was advised to report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI if conduct issues continued. Ergzay reported Rahio1234 at WP:ANI. Rahio1234 was indeffed by Star Mississippi. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Louise Williams reported by User:QuietHere (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227560711 by QuietHere (talk) I saw. I also listened to the track. And listening to it confirmed it's a 39-second snippet of another song. My adjustment is accurate (my source that it's a snippet is the one at the link, all one has to do is listen to it), but if you really feel the need to make an inaccurate adjustment (it is NOT a single just because DSPs say it is), you go right ahead."
13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Waeve."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) on The Waeve "User:Louise Williams, did you not see what I wrote the last time I undid this same edit? Please bring this to the talk page if you're insistent on it, or at least provide a new source that verifies the claim if you're gonna do it again."

Comments:

Was told multiple times to provide a source. Most recent edit summary shows blatant OR. Original addition here which is older than 48 hours. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Both parties have reverted twice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dan12333 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Dan12333 (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:

21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Inside Out 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

reference to discussion were on revert notices, refused to engage Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drsruli reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1228005518 by M.Bitton (talk) Since we had a previous concensus that the material should not be included, I think that the burden falls on the one restoring it."
23:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1228005518 by M.Bitton (talk) You can ask about it in the talk section. There are obvious reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)"[reply]
23:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227997594 by M.Bitton (talk) Discussed extensively in the talk section."
22:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Palestine */ This article is not a place for including traditions in countries. (Greek and Roman is not modern countries. In any case, it wouldn't go in "Symbolism" section. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC))"[reply]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Olive."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */ new section"
00:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */"
00:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Please note that their first edit is a revert (they know that since they are mentioning an old discussion). Also, the content that they are removing without a valid reason has been stable for months. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some time was allowed for the original author of the content to fix. He did not not. The fact that the mistake was permitted to remain for months does not remove the underlying problem with the biased entry. Drsruli (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that: a) the content has been stable for months and you failed to provide a valid reason for why you keep obliterating the Palestine section while leaving the US despite claiming in your edit summary that the article is not a place for including traditions in countries, and b) your claim that a consensus exists for its removal is totally baseless (as highlighted by another editor on the talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanadianEditor1995 reported by User:The Kip (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3
4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by @Zzyzx11 on June 2.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not personally, admittedly, but multiple other WikiProject Ice Hockey editors who I've collaborated with (on the article, and in combatting the reverts) have on the user's talk page. None have seemingly gotten through to the editor in question, who continues to insist we're in the wrong.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified at time of report.

Comments:
Effectively doing this on behalf of the multiple editors, including myself, who've had to deal with this at Utah NHL team. While the content restored has not been identical every time, the editor in question has continuously removed information denoting the team as an expansion (including reliable sources), and replaced it with claims that it's a relocation, contrary to sources. They've done the same at National Hockey League, as seen here, and their combative approach at their talk page doesn't seem to indicate they'll stop soon. They're also more than likely the same user as this IP and this IP, who were restoring/removing the same content prior to CanadianEditor1995 resgistering (which would mean we're at seven reverts here). Somewhat amusingly, they're also claiming that as a Canadian, they simply know more about the sport than we do.

Please do let me know if I'm out of line here, due to not personally participating on the talk page; I'll hand this off to one of the multiple editors who've participated there, if need be. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy tagging @Deadman137, @HappyBoi3892, and @Ravenswing as others who've dealt with the user in question. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think you're out of line. Given his incessant edit warring, his combative attitude, his utter refusal to accept that content disputes are settled by consensus, and that he has managed the startling feat of having almost every single one of his mainspace edits to date reverted -- over a dozen different articles -- CanadianEditor1995 is demonstrating that he's a poor fit for Wikipedia. Were this ANI, I'd already be advocating an indef. Ravenswing 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second what Ravenswing said. This is an editor that clearly struggles with WP:DROPTHESTICK. An indefinite block should be considered as well as an indefinite ice hockey topic ban because they are clearly here to only push their viewpoint in spite of contradictory evidence to their views. These issues are clearly demonstrated on the Utah NHL team and CanadianEditor1995 talk pages. Deadman137 (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not one of the tagged individuals, but I’ve reverted some of this individual's edits as well (both to the Utah NHL Team article and the National Hockey League article, where he’s done the same thing), along with extremely similar edits he’s made under other usernames and IP addresses. I strongly encourage the reviewing administrator(s) to look at CanadianEdtior1995's talk page and at the abrasive and insulting comments he leaves when anyone questions him. I happen to agree with CanadianEditor1995 that the NHL's approach to this issue is a little bit silly, but that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach. The NHL has definitively expressed its view on the status of the Utah and Arizona franchises. That settles the matter regardless of what individual Wikipedia editors might prefer. 1995hoo (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked. 1995hoo, what "other usernames"?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Admittedly it is a very strong suspicion rather than ironclad proof, but shortly before Memorial Day weekend last month User:Joseph507357 was making the exact same edits CanadianEditor1995 has been making and even deleted one of my comments from the Utah NHL Team talk page in which I said he was wrong (diff: [1]—note Joseph507357's edit summary, "Deleting false information," as to my talk page comment). I recall there was a sockpuppet investigation involving Joseph507357 and some IPs that you yourself closed for insufficient evidence. There was another investigation connecting CanadianEditor1995 and some IPs; User:Sir Sputnik closed that one because an unregistered user creating an account isn’t a sockpuppet violation. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove and thus have not requested an investigation, that CanadianEditor1995 and Joseph507357 are also the same person, given the nearly identical edits regarding the Arizona/Utah hockey issue and the extremely abrasive and confrontational approach to anyone who disagrees. (I can’t say I ever recall anyone else just flat-out deleting my comments from an article talk page. A user talk page, sure. That’s at the user's discretion. But not on an article talk page.) Not sure I will have further replies today. I’m on vacation and I’m basically online killing time in the hotel room while waiting for my wife to wake up. 1995hoo (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1995hoo: Haha. Why are you editing Wikipedia at all while on vacation? Not a healthy thing to do. :p Thanks for the detailed explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else to do in the hotel room early in the morning. I can’t turn on the TV while my wife's still in bed. But I actually had a thought while in the shower just now: Joseph507357 has been strikingly silent since CanadianEditor1995 appeared on the scene. If the former now comes back to life, that fact might be the missing link. Of course, I suppose by saying that here I might be giving said user(s) motivation to try something else! 1995hoo (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the latest spew at CanadianEditor1995's talk page is a strong bid for TPA revocation. Ravenswing 06:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Partial blocked for 6 months)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary delete noise) Masem had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-06-10T03:50:21

Comments:

Please see previous discussion, which I've included diffs from that report here for additional context. Excelsiorsbanjo is borderline WP:NOTHERE at this point, refusing to discuss their edits on the talk page, and ignoring the straw poll completely (which is unanimous at this point). They've made the statement that they will continue to revert without end (In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is waiting for Excelsiorsbanjo to reply here, based on the prior report and the fact that they didn't reply to it at all, it should be clear there's no interest in addressing their conduct, just being disruptive. They've already removed the ANEW notice from their talk page with the edit summary delete noise which appears to be their default response to things they don't like here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pblocked from the article for 6 months. They clearly don't want to follow consensus, so they can use the talk page instead. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite Given the demonstrated recalcitrance (See you all in six months. Wikipedia, always good for a laugh.) I'd recommend just indef from that page and then let them appeal it and convince someone they're not going to immediately return to protracted edit warring. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could pay attention to the actions of this other edit warrior, who just keeps spamming this board until he gets the chump response he wants. =P Also, you should actually read the talk pages you're talking about, Black Kite, still. Like, that is elementary. I know you haven't read it. It's obvious. Anyway the lesson I'm learning here is whine to admins over and over and ignore consensus until some foolish admin who can't or won't read just knee-jerk does what I want. But I already knew that was how Wikipedia worked, which is exactly why I have done nothing but revert edits on this matter. Talking to you people is an absolute waste of time. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the continued edit warring on this page, while this solves it temporarily (not in the way I would have liked when I handled a similar complaint a couple of weeks ago), I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page per CT/CID since this clearly falls under that, if and when this sort of dispute resumes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blazefuse reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked from article for a month)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[4]
[5]
[6]
23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) "Unnecessary politically motivated information. Including voting records may lead to a dangerous precedent."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Comments: Note: 3RR has not been violated. However, this is a slow-moving edit war that has continued after the user was warned. Appears to be politically motivated (worth mentioning that the subject of the article is currently involved in an election, which might be a motivating factor). — Czello ^(music) 07:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one month from article, i.e. through the election. User is editing against consensus and policy and has not shown any inclination to discuss either on their talk page or the article's. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:60.243.160.114 reported by User:Ustadeditor2011 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:2003:ea:4f4f:c2d1:8825:c9d9:70f1:8352 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Page protected indefinitely)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. @Göycen: was also warned but has not made a revision since being warned

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments: Both users have gone back-and-forth through edit summaries, and it has also spilled into reverting on other articles. There are WP:CIVIL issues as well... -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected indefinitely. I will log this at CTOPS under AA as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the IP did not violate 3RR since the first edit was not a revert, it seems they have been combative in other articles and have shown an unwillingness to discuss, so I left them a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:185.124.28.24 reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: 185.124.28.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "WP:EVENTDOY is very clear. Uses the term "sholud be". This is not obligatory. I'm doing a sourced edits. This is not an edit warring."
04:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "WP:EVENTDOY mention is made of the word "should be" which does not mean obligation. You are removing sourced content justifying that there is no specific page in wikipedia. Just because it doesn't exist an specific page on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Its not necessary to create first an article of this."
04:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "Just because it doesn't exist an specific page on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Its not necessary to create first an article of this."
04:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "No logic reason to revert this sourced edit. Explain"
04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Holidays and observances */New official observance: as per UN (https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-day-of-play)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:60.243.160.114 reported by User:Ustadeditor2011 (Result: Declined)

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: No discussion has taken place on the article's talk page was also warned but has not made a revision since being warned

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

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

Comments:

Declined If they haven't made an edit since being warned, then the warning is working. But I have left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.230.214.119 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Page protected indefinitely under CTOPS)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: permalink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (although it is directed towards the other IP editor 46.123.253.214, User:188.230.214.119 should be getting the clear message there not just from me but also all the others)

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

Comments:

Although this is an edit war involving two different IP editors on one side (188.230.214.119 and 46.123.248.0/21), this editor focusses on User:188.230.214.119. The other IP editor, 46.123.248.0/21 has at least joined the discussion on the talk page, and hasn't made any edits since 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC). User:188.230.214.119 on the other hand, has been constantly restoring their edit on the article without discussion on the talk page, even despite my warning on their user talk page. There are already several existing open threads on the talk page they could look at and see what the existing consensus is / join in if they want to offer their position on the matter. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected indefinitely and I will be logging this at CTOPS under BLP due to this nationalistic edit warring (EE could also apply, but this is less political/historical and we've usually logged these nationalistic disputes over living artists/performers under BLP). Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GylonVisagie reported by User:Bahooka (Result: 1 week)

User being reported: GylonVisagie (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:

14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bugatti Chiron."
15:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */"
05:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Unsourced successor */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 week — also looks like they intended to continue making the same edits that got them blocked for edit warring the first time. --slakr^\ talk / 08:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.81.82.84 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:
WP:NOTHERE IP causing only disruption [25], more or less not writing a edit summary and not using the talk pages at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they are still continuing to make disruptive edits without discussing.[26][27] Mellk (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thanks Daniel Case! Unfortunately, they are now avoiding their block through user account User:Ali Kazimov Bey, could you please help with this as well? [28] [29] and [30] [31] HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Favonian blocked the sock, and I have extended the block by a week for this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stormy160 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Declined)

User being reported: Stormy160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1228038562&oldid=1228019549

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1227959267&oldid=1227797418

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1213188552&oldid=1211675657

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 20:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) to 01:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) on Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election

Comments:

Bringing this here on the recommendation of an administrator on Discord, because I've gotten tired of trying to deal with this for the past few months now.

I and several other editors from WP:WikiProject Voting Systems have been trying to expand 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election with additional information regarding the new electoral system in use there, including information regarding the election as a participation and majoritarian failure. So far, we've provided citations to media sources discussing these behaviors as well as scholarly articles confirming them. In doing so, we've been consistently reverted by User:Stormy160, who has at various points on the talk claimed they're fine with the information being included, but seems to consistently revert any that includes mention of the majoritarian failure in the race. The contributions are consistently well-sourced and directly reflect the comments of experts in the field of social choice theory, but are reverted regardless of phrasing.

The 3 diffs I gave are chosen as examples. There have been many, many more (which you can find on the history page).

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out a few things here. First, I have consistently attempted to incorporate things from the talk page into the article, and the edits have evolved over time. So I would hardly describe that as "reverting" because the intention has always been to constructively build off of the last edit. You can see that over time what I have edited has changed significantly, as I have tried to both compromise and improve the language based on the discussion, as well as keep the lede from getting too long. Second, majoritarian failure is mentioned in the current version, "They cited Begich's elimination as an example of a center squeeze, a scenario in which the candidate closest to the center of public opinion is eliminated due to failing to receive enough first choice votes.[13][14][15] More voters ranked Begich above Peltola, but Palin played the role of spoiler by knocking Begich out of contention in the first round of the run-off." And third, there's a difference between expanding information and providing an opinion framed as a fact, as I have said many times. Please look at our discussion and you'll see that I've said over and over that discussing these concepts is good as long as it is done in a way that isn't framing instant runoff voting in an overtly negative (or positive, for that matter) way. Throughout I have tried to incorporate additional information this user has provided (I'm not sure where "several other users" comes from, there was one other at one point), only to get pushback. I've tried my best to be constructive and have not just been reverting. And finally, providing an alternative set of results for the election is just a "what if" and not factual, plus to put them in the "results" section suggests they are official. There is no ill will here. Stormy160 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Declined It seems that at least one other user agrees with Stormy here, and thus they are not clearly editing against a consensus. But at the same time dismissing the graf about possible alternative outcomes as "speculation" omits the fact that it's sourced speculation, which of course does not settle the argument about whether to include it but means those opposing that have to make a case on other grounds.

The editors could certainly bring in more editors to the discussion to form a stronger consensus. But it really seems to me like this is the wrong article for this. Lengthy discussions of the what-ifs of the election and the merits or lack thereof of various voting systems as reflected here might best be moved to the articles about the various voting systems, or perhaps Elections in Alaska. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalanishashika reported by User:Petextrodon (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:
This appears to be a single-purpose account recently created to sabotage this particular article judging by their edit history. Partly due to their edit warring [1][2] there last month the page was protected and now they're back at it despite several warnings. Despite having been explained to them by another user last month that consensus wasn't required to add content, they've now used the same excuse "no consensus" to revert my content in violation of WP:DRNC. They admitted this was wrong, but cited another policy based on what they "feel" to revert once again without giving any substantive explanation. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE that won't stop without admin intervention. I have a reasonable suspicion from similar behavioral pattern this user could be potentially coordinating off-Wiki with a now topic banned user but I guess this is not the place for that report.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am sorry if I did break any rules, per the warning given by Petextrodon I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours. I agree that I did get carried away on the 10th June, shouldn't have done that. However, I only did three reverts and just left. I saw Petextrodon's warning after that. However, I don't understand how his reverts are OK [39], an experienced editor as he, should have not kept on reverting and engage in the talk page, rather than revert and then engage in the talk page. His comments I found uncivil, and I responded to his accusation [40]. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalanishashika: "I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours."

I believe that is called "gaming the system" which is forbidden here. My reverts were within the 3RR limits and I did them with good justifications since you provided non-policy reasons and also per WP:DRNC.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon, "gaming the system" is that a new accusation against me? I explained my reasons in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just explaining a Wiki policy to you. It's stated at the top of this very page:

"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."---Petextrodon (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon, I disagree. I did not intend to game the system. However, what I say doesn't seems to hold ground. Seems you have already found me guilty of it, it's up to you to then pass judgement. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system is, in this case, sort of a strict liability accusation, as the quoted policy states. Your explanation above basically admits to it. You have not offered an explanation that comes under the permitted exceptions to 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warned @Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: Please take this as a warning that you are both edit warring, and continuing to edit war will likely result in blocks for one or both editors. Petextrodon, if you're looking for a policy-based reason for the revert of the content you're adding, then see WP:ONUS; it is your responsibility to achieve consensus for disputed content that you wish to add. - Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm open to discussion as you can tell by the talk page. What I expect from the other user is substantive explanation than simply throwing bunch of rules at me without any details.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh By the way, is it not the case if only one user is disputing a particular content, "the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus," as per WP:DRNC?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you just added it, no. That is not the WP:STATUSQUO version and you should not have reverted it once it was known that it was disputed. I don't agree with your assessment of the talk page discussion; your talk page behavior there is less than ideal, which includes the unsubstantiated allegations of personal behavior. They have given a valid reason why it doesn't belong, you have not provided any explanation of why you believe it does other than demanding an explanation or for policy links. You are required to explain why it should be added to the article, not the other way around. If you are able to provide an explanation as to why the content should be added to the article, I would suggest making an attempt to do so and if there's no agreement after that, both of you should look into WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ali Kazimov Bey reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Ali Kazimov Bey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "The correct boundaries of Aq Qoyunlu"
13:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) to 12:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
1. 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
2. 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
3. 12:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
4. 12:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
10:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
10:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Corrections about status and true name of state"
Consecutive edits made from 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) to 10:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
1. 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
2. 09:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
3. 10:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User talk:Ali Kazimov Bey

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I specifically said (in the edit summary) that they violated 3R when reverting their edit, hoping that would make them stop, but they don't seem to care. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 471: / Line 471: @@
 *:Understood. I'm open to discussion as you can tell by the talk page. What I expect from the other user is substantive explanation than simply throwing bunch of rules at me without any details.---[[User:Petextrodon|Petextrodon]] ([[User talk:Petextrodon|talk]]) 16:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 *::@[[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] By the way, is it not the case if only one user is disputing a particular content, "the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus," as per [[WP:DRNC]]?---[[User:Petextrodon|Petextrodon]] ([[User talk:Petextrodon|talk]]) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+*:::Not if you [[Special:Diff/1228133125|just added it]], no. That is not the [[WP:STATUSQUO]] version and [[WP:BRD|you should not have reverted it]] once it was known that it was disputed. I don't agree with your assessment of the talk page discussion; your talk page behavior there is less than ideal, which includes the [[WP:ASPERSIONS|unsubstantiated allegations of personal behavior]]. They have given a valid reason why it doesn't belong, you have not provided any explanation of why you believe it does other than demanding an explanation or for policy links. ''You'' are required to explain why it should be added to the article, not the other way around. If you are able to provide an explanation as to why the content should be added to the article, I would suggest making an attempt to do so and if there's no agreement after that, both of you should look into [[WP:3O]]. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 == [[User:Ali Kazimov Bey]] reported by [[User:M.Bitton]] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==

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