Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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.
| ||
Page:
Maratha Confederacy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
(First four within 24 hours, last three within 24 hours as well)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]
Comments:
Administrator could indefinitely block me as all of this is mine fault only. I apologize to everyone. Mohammad Umar Ali
Page:
Spokane County, Washington (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Excelsiorsbanjo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
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: [16]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-05-25T16:39:08
Comments:
As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.What...? We have a secondary source that states the flag was "decommissioned", there are no sources since then stating the flag is current or in use. There was some detective work being done, but all of that is WP:OR and even if it panned out, isn't something we can use to make an edit here. I'm struggling to understand why protection was used here when there's a clear protracted edit war with Excelsiorsbanjo being the only person to constantly re-add the flag over the objections of multiple editors. This really needs to be a block. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.? The "reported user" hasn't suggested that as far as I can tell (beyond bludgeoning the discussion with the claim of a "consensus" that appears to consist of themselves and the uploader who hasn't opined whatsoever in the discussion nor edited the article since adding the image), meanwhile no less than four editors have either rejected the edit this editor is reverting to on the talk page or said they need more sourcing to validate that it is correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous on this point:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We don't engage in discussion with edit warriors who to date have presented zero sources (Excelsiorsbanjo tried to wave away the discussion initially by stating
[t]he local newspaper has plenty on it) and simply tried to bully their way through the conversation.
I chose full protection, in the hope that a consensus could be reached if more editors got involved, because the only other option IMO would have to block both EB and you at least from the page for some time because you were both edit warring. Since you have been contributing to Wikipedia almost as long as I have without ever getting blocked, and are a valued member of the community, I thought you might appreciate this.
I see now that judgement was a mistake. So, I will offer you and Excelsiorbanjo a compromise: if you both consent to being blocked from the article and the talk page for a month, I will lift the protection and let other editors deal with the issue. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag.I guess this early reply in January is just my imagination?
you were both edit warringMy brother in Christ, in the span of seven days I reverted four times. Excelsiorsbanjo reverted six times (against two different editors). I get that invoking WP:BOOMERANG is fun and all, but I warned Excelsiorsbanjo (prior to realizing they'd already been warned five years ago), reverted one final time, and came here after it became clear this was not going to stop. I've provided reasons and sources for my statements, while Excelsiorsbanjo has just tried to wave away any argument against inclusion and remained consistent in claiming that just their side (which *counts on fingers* is one person, Excelsiorsbanjo) has somehow achieved consensus... I've contributed significantly to this project over nearly twenty years. Excelsiorsbanjo has made less than 300 edits and appears to have spent the last five years learning how to not collaborate or understand how this project works. We are not the same.
In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal.
It would be like me saying I had decided to block you for edit warring, but without anything in the block log proving that I did. That could not be taken to mean I had blocked you.
Fully protecting a page is never, repeat never, any reflection or judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the version protected. It is a message to the editors involved that they need to cool this down and discuss as they have failed at maintaining the status quo. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That only proves that they, at that time, intended to.The text says
decided to. It doesn't say
intended to,
planned toor some variation of that.
decidedis the
simple past and past participle of decide. My understanding is that prior to that flag, the county didn't have any flag whatsoever, so it stands to reason that "no flag" is a possibility. Usually we defer to secondary sources, especially in situations like this where no other sources have been provided to refute the "decommissioned" status. It's kind of baffling to see you wanting something official when we typically avoid official records (just look at how biographies handle birthdates, or how we discourage using press releases for announcements over secondary source coverage of those topics, etc). Regardless, making assumptions about whether they actually decommissioned it or not is original research. You're supplanting what a reliable secondary source says with what you think they meant instead of taking the words plainly. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I do have an idea for how we can resolve this to (I hope) everyone's satisfaction. Some people on the talk page have mentioned getting in touch with the county to see if they can find any records regarding the vote on the flag in their archives. I mean, they should have it if it were voted on ... if you keep no other public records of a body's actions on file this long, you keep meeting minutes. Of course I don't know how long they'd be required to keep them, and given Washington's reputation for having such loophole-ridden sunshine laws, I might not be optimistic.
Now, it's one thing if a bunch of Wikipedia editors ask for this. It's another if the local media does—it would turn up the heat on the people at the archives. Not that I think they'd be delaying on purpose or anything, but knowing how this works I can tell you that when they know the media's making the request (OK, I know, in a sense we are the media, but not like, say, the Spokesman-Review is) it gets a higher priority.
So, we should contact the S-R and suggest this as a story they should assign someone to cover. It wouldn't require many resources on their part (a not-inconsiderable issue given the current besieged state of local newspapers) and I can't imagine any way it could be argued that this would not be a story, especially given the recent effort to redesign the city's flag.
I am willing to reach out to the newspaper myself if desired, given my own distant-past experience in journalism. The end product of all this would be an unimpeachably reliable secondary source on this (and maybe the embarrassed county commissioners hastily voting to decommission the flag if it were found that they hadn't already). And it might make a good Signpost story, too. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Oldest people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Дејан2021 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: Already reverted
Diffs of the user's reverts:
User was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. On expiration of block they resumed the edit war. They were then blocked for 1 week. That expired a couple of days ago. They have again resumed the edit war.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]
Comments:
Page:
Christian fundamentalism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Moxy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]
Comments:
This user is
harassing me by repeatedly reverting valid edits with no explanation
Struct (
talk) 01:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
1989 Polish parliamentary election (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
User was one of two editors that breached 3RR on this article yesterday, but unlike the other, FeldmarschallGneisenau has continued reverting today (shortly after the 24 hour period following their previous edits expired) despite being strongly advised to stop. Number 5 7 01:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Elections isn't a word in the English language unless there are different types of elections happening on the same day, or happening in different states of a federal country. A parliamentary election in a unitary state is only one election. Calling it "elections" is bad grammar.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: CZ Scorpion Evo 3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waterlover3 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
4 reverts by this user, which have continued since being warned about 3RR, plus two by the account User:Lemandros ( [25] [26]), who denies sockpuppetry, but it certainly fits all the signs of a WP:SLEEPER being used for that purpose. The edit also fails WP:V, as the Scorpion isn't mentioned by name in either of the cited sources. Loafiewa ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
List of states with nuclear weapons (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
2001:999:588:4a43:473b:d28b:b4bc:5341 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]
Comments:
Removal of sources replacement with unsoured content. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George Awad 1 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Evidently persistent vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikibear47 ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Afzal Khan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.69.215.187 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
11 RR as I write this. Aloha27 talk 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Syria (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Ironzombie39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]
Comments:
This user with 85 edits has been edit warring on a contentious topic where editors are not allowed to make more than one revert per 24 hours.
Skitash (
talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Thirty Seconds to Mars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
209899Geovanni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]
Comments:
Not a 3RR report but a slow moving edit war that is a continuation of
a 6 May ANEW report for which they were blocked. Not counting the 4 IP reverts before their account was created, they have made this exact revert 8 times with no attempt at discussion. With the exception of
their first edit, the editor has never used any talk page of any kind despite a
request to do so and continues to edit war to their preferred version. -
Aoidh (
talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
article history
Page: Julius Streicher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 148.252.146.226 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent edit warring over the name "Nazi". StephenMacky1 ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Black War (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Jack4576 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [43]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[53]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] followed by RfC: [55]. The RfC, started by Jack4576, is ongoing.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]
Comments:
The initial 3RR breach was corrected after I pointed this out, so my view is there is not a 3RR breach. However, to return to the edit warring as soon as the time expired, when Jack has started an RfC on the issue, is still classic edit warring. They persistently claim that their wording has a consensus, but that is clearly not the case in the previous discussion, nor (yet) in the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Simla Convention (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
MainBody (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [57]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
The terms "unratified" and "unequal treaty" can be seen to have been reinstated repeatedly, among other changes.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #New edits to the lead, #More out of date commentary
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]
Comments:
The editor has started making a series of edits to the main page on 22 May 2024, some of which I regard as WP:POV. Shows no effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS, no effort to engage on the talk page, or even state any rationales in the edit summaries. It appears that this will go on forever unless the editor is suitably warned. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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.
| ||
Page:
Maratha Confederacy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
(First four within 24 hours, last three within 24 hours as well)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]
Comments:
Administrator could indefinitely block me as all of this is mine fault only. I apologize to everyone. Mohammad Umar Ali
Page:
Spokane County, Washington (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Excelsiorsbanjo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
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: [16]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-05-25T16:39:08
Comments:
As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.What...? We have a secondary source that states the flag was "decommissioned", there are no sources since then stating the flag is current or in use. There was some detective work being done, but all of that is WP:OR and even if it panned out, isn't something we can use to make an edit here. I'm struggling to understand why protection was used here when there's a clear protracted edit war with Excelsiorsbanjo being the only person to constantly re-add the flag over the objections of multiple editors. This really needs to be a block. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.? The "reported user" hasn't suggested that as far as I can tell (beyond bludgeoning the discussion with the claim of a "consensus" that appears to consist of themselves and the uploader who hasn't opined whatsoever in the discussion nor edited the article since adding the image), meanwhile no less than four editors have either rejected the edit this editor is reverting to on the talk page or said they need more sourcing to validate that it is correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous on this point:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We don't engage in discussion with edit warriors who to date have presented zero sources (Excelsiorsbanjo tried to wave away the discussion initially by stating
[t]he local newspaper has plenty on it) and simply tried to bully their way through the conversation.
I chose full protection, in the hope that a consensus could be reached if more editors got involved, because the only other option IMO would have to block both EB and you at least from the page for some time because you were both edit warring. Since you have been contributing to Wikipedia almost as long as I have without ever getting blocked, and are a valued member of the community, I thought you might appreciate this.
I see now that judgement was a mistake. So, I will offer you and Excelsiorbanjo a compromise: if you both consent to being blocked from the article and the talk page for a month, I will lift the protection and let other editors deal with the issue. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag.I guess this early reply in January is just my imagination?
you were both edit warringMy brother in Christ, in the span of seven days I reverted four times. Excelsiorsbanjo reverted six times (against two different editors). I get that invoking WP:BOOMERANG is fun and all, but I warned Excelsiorsbanjo (prior to realizing they'd already been warned five years ago), reverted one final time, and came here after it became clear this was not going to stop. I've provided reasons and sources for my statements, while Excelsiorsbanjo has just tried to wave away any argument against inclusion and remained consistent in claiming that just their side (which *counts on fingers* is one person, Excelsiorsbanjo) has somehow achieved consensus... I've contributed significantly to this project over nearly twenty years. Excelsiorsbanjo has made less than 300 edits and appears to have spent the last five years learning how to not collaborate or understand how this project works. We are not the same.
In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal.
It would be like me saying I had decided to block you for edit warring, but without anything in the block log proving that I did. That could not be taken to mean I had blocked you.
Fully protecting a page is never, repeat never, any reflection or judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the version protected. It is a message to the editors involved that they need to cool this down and discuss as they have failed at maintaining the status quo. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That only proves that they, at that time, intended to.The text says
decided to. It doesn't say
intended to,
planned toor some variation of that.
decidedis the
simple past and past participle of decide. My understanding is that prior to that flag, the county didn't have any flag whatsoever, so it stands to reason that "no flag" is a possibility. Usually we defer to secondary sources, especially in situations like this where no other sources have been provided to refute the "decommissioned" status. It's kind of baffling to see you wanting something official when we typically avoid official records (just look at how biographies handle birthdates, or how we discourage using press releases for announcements over secondary source coverage of those topics, etc). Regardless, making assumptions about whether they actually decommissioned it or not is original research. You're supplanting what a reliable secondary source says with what you think they meant instead of taking the words plainly. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I do have an idea for how we can resolve this to (I hope) everyone's satisfaction. Some people on the talk page have mentioned getting in touch with the county to see if they can find any records regarding the vote on the flag in their archives. I mean, they should have it if it were voted on ... if you keep no other public records of a body's actions on file this long, you keep meeting minutes. Of course I don't know how long they'd be required to keep them, and given Washington's reputation for having such loophole-ridden sunshine laws, I might not be optimistic.
Now, it's one thing if a bunch of Wikipedia editors ask for this. It's another if the local media does—it would turn up the heat on the people at the archives. Not that I think they'd be delaying on purpose or anything, but knowing how this works I can tell you that when they know the media's making the request (OK, I know, in a sense we are the media, but not like, say, the Spokesman-Review is) it gets a higher priority.
So, we should contact the S-R and suggest this as a story they should assign someone to cover. It wouldn't require many resources on their part (a not-inconsiderable issue given the current besieged state of local newspapers) and I can't imagine any way it could be argued that this would not be a story, especially given the recent effort to redesign the city's flag.
I am willing to reach out to the newspaper myself if desired, given my own distant-past experience in journalism. The end product of all this would be an unimpeachably reliable secondary source on this (and maybe the embarrassed county commissioners hastily voting to decommission the flag if it were found that they hadn't already). And it might make a good Signpost story, too. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Oldest people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Дејан2021 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: Already reverted
Diffs of the user's reverts:
User was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. On expiration of block they resumed the edit war. They were then blocked for 1 week. That expired a couple of days ago. They have again resumed the edit war.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]
Comments:
Page:
Christian fundamentalism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Moxy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]
Comments:
This user is
harassing me by repeatedly reverting valid edits with no explanation
Struct (
talk) 01:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
1989 Polish parliamentary election (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
User was one of two editors that breached 3RR on this article yesterday, but unlike the other, FeldmarschallGneisenau has continued reverting today (shortly after the 24 hour period following their previous edits expired) despite being strongly advised to stop. Number 5 7 01:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Elections isn't a word in the English language unless there are different types of elections happening on the same day, or happening in different states of a federal country. A parliamentary election in a unitary state is only one election. Calling it "elections" is bad grammar.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: CZ Scorpion Evo 3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waterlover3 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
4 reverts by this user, which have continued since being warned about 3RR, plus two by the account User:Lemandros ( [25] [26]), who denies sockpuppetry, but it certainly fits all the signs of a WP:SLEEPER being used for that purpose. The edit also fails WP:V, as the Scorpion isn't mentioned by name in either of the cited sources. Loafiewa ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
List of states with nuclear weapons (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
2001:999:588:4a43:473b:d28b:b4bc:5341 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]
Comments:
Removal of sources replacement with unsoured content. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George Awad 1 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Evidently persistent vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikibear47 ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Afzal Khan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.69.215.187 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
11 RR as I write this. Aloha27 talk 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Syria (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Ironzombie39 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]
Comments:
This user with 85 edits has been edit warring on a contentious topic where editors are not allowed to make more than one revert per 24 hours.
Skitash (
talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Thirty Seconds to Mars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
209899Geovanni (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]
Comments:
Not a 3RR report but a slow moving edit war that is a continuation of
a 6 May ANEW report for which they were blocked. Not counting the 4 IP reverts before their account was created, they have made this exact revert 8 times with no attempt at discussion. With the exception of
their first edit, the editor has never used any talk page of any kind despite a
request to do so and continues to edit war to their preferred version. -
Aoidh (
talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
article history
Page: Julius Streicher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 148.252.146.226 ( 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:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent edit warring over the name "Nazi". StephenMacky1 ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Black War (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Jack4576 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [43]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[53]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] followed by RfC: [55]. The RfC, started by Jack4576, is ongoing.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]
Comments:
The initial 3RR breach was corrected after I pointed this out, so my view is there is not a 3RR breach. However, to return to the edit warring as soon as the time expired, when Jack has started an RfC on the issue, is still classic edit warring. They persistently claim that their wording has a consensus, but that is clearly not the case in the previous discussion, nor (yet) in the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Simla Convention (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
MainBody (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [57]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
The terms "unratified" and "unequal treaty" can be seen to have been reinstated repeatedly, among other changes.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #New edits to the lead, #More out of date commentary
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]
Comments:
The editor has started making a series of edits to the main page on 22 May 2024, some of which I regard as WP:POV. Shows no effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS, no effort to engage on the talk page, or even state any rationales in the edit summaries. It appears that this will go on forever unless the editor is suitably warned. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)