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
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:
Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Epicgenius (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: several versions, he always changes the article after reverting me.
Diffs of my edits that were reverted:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
I was reading this article on June 26 and noticed that facade appeared several times in it. Considering that it's a loanword from French, where it's spelled façade with a cedilla, and considering that the
English Wikipedia article also uses the spelling with a cedilla, I edited the article to apply this spelling. There are possibly hundreds of other articles that may be using the spelling without a cedilla, I'm not trying to impose my POV and changing all of them. I did it on this particular article because I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but the user does not accept it at all. He reverted me four times and then accused *me* of edit warring, on the talk page. He insists that facade is the correct spelling and that there needs to be an "article-level consensus" on the subject for it to be changed. I'm not asking for a block on the user, I just would like someone else to weigh in on this discussion. I particularly think that façade is a more suitable spelling and that the user is imposing his POV and acting as the "owner" of the article, but I will accept whichever solution is proposed by a neutral third party. Regards, —
capmo (
talk)
19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raoul mishima ( 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:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kelvintjy ( 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:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss.I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.
Page: New Albany, Mississippi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.240.113.219 ( 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:
Page:
Akademset (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Ssr (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: baseline version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Ssr talk page warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: an3-notice on Ssr's talk page
Comments:
I think these hostile responses are unacceptable and objectively unproductive. The material added by this user introduces seven or so undefined reference errors. There's one reference that's hooked-up, but all others cause errors. The edits this user made were not described in edit summaries, and I offered to help on the talk page. Their responses have not been WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Jonathan Gullis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
150.107.175.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Removal of "British politician" from lead sentence:
Adding "ex-" to the lead sentence:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
The person making these edits behind this IP address appears to be uncommunicative, unaware of the policy about edit warring, and is constantly restoring these changed—which have now been opposed by at least seven different editors, including me—without engaging in any talk page discussion.
What's rather ironic and funny here is that this 150.107.175.66 IP address is actually the public IP I'm currently editing Wikipedia from. I discovered this edit war incidentally while using Wikipedia in a private browsing window, and so I tried to stop the edit war by sending the IP a friendly notice about edit-warring (I noticed there were "vandalism" warnings on the user talk page, which I know these edits aren't quite vandalism), as well as starting a discussion on the article talk page providing my opinion on the matter (although I did make one revert, with a good explanation).
More about this IP, it's a CGNAT network, meaning there are actually multiple customer connections on this single IP address. Doesn't look like a block would cause much collateral damage though, and I am aware the standard type of IP address editing block only prevents anonymous users from editing and not logged-out editors. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Emily Reid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomforx ( 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:
Page: James McMurdock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.64.200.38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Justification in line with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (conviction is now spent)."
The conviction in question is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act 1974.
All matters relating to this offence took place before his election. As such continued reference to this past incident is in breach of Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Editor has three times removed information relating to this person's conviction. Editor has posted on my Talk page Edits are based on British and European law. Do not reverse and similar on ADifferentMan ( talk · contribs)'s Talk page. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
He has now also replied to my warning with the same. Porterjoh ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Germany national football team (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Truefacts24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Uruguay_four_time_world_champions?
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the
WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith."
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Indian National Army ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rueben lys ( 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: Notice by Azuredivay
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou. I am not sure why my last edit hadn't been saved. The point of contention is not what "people believe". The contention is
WP:NPOV. I have written in this article (and many otehrs) over the last twenty years, and am quite familiar with W:RS as all my work would show. The article as I wrote it (and I will point out I do not claim ownership, but am damn proud of the what it was ten years ago) balanced the diametrically opposing view points of collaborator/traitors against the freedomfighter. Note NPOV is not dependent on WP:RS as the page on NPOV will tell any editor. There is necessarily two very opposing view points on this unit, and since 1950s (
Hugh Toye,s the war of the springing tiger onwards), there is a bias within British historians to decribe and insist on describing this unit as "collaborators" and collaborators only. I will challenge you to find a single Indian person in the street who will agree with this and will not find this description deeply offensive (as my google search has demonstrated). In India the unit is seen as "freedom fighter" (Note there is a
monument in Singapore paid for by Indians in memory of a memorial that was destroyed by the Allied forces in 1945. This is how the unit and its history is perceived in India and by Indians. The fact that it was blown up by allied forces will also give you an idea what perception the unit was held in by British/allied forces and the historians in Western Universities thereafter who wrote about this organisation.
Therefore to insist on a version that insists on imposing this deeply divisive and pejorative description in the very introductory sentence on the basis of a "imaginative history" is blatantly POV. When I wrote the article I introduced this divison on perspective in the introduction, and then dedicated an entire section to this controversy, in order the article was NPOV. Note the resources I used where by very well regarded Historians in published research work, from well regarded universities (the best of best of WP:RS). What has happened in the preceding four years whilst I moved on in real life was that this balanced perspective has slowly been chipped away to the point the pejorative description is now being insisted upon, and the editors insisting on this are using dubious resources (I wouldn't consider the work cited to be reliable, either the work themselves or the authors). My insistence is that there be an avoidance of perjorative terms and descriptions favouring one POV at the expense of another. This makes wikipedia an unreliable resource. I am sure none of us want that, and spoils the efforts made by other editors (including the historical me) who dedicate their own time. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The other thing to highlight is the version I have reverted from also corrected factual inaccuracies.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
15:39, 19 July 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
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:
Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Epicgenius (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: several versions, he always changes the article after reverting me.
Diffs of my edits that were reverted:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
I was reading this article on June 26 and noticed that facade appeared several times in it. Considering that it's a loanword from French, where it's spelled façade with a cedilla, and considering that the
English Wikipedia article also uses the spelling with a cedilla, I edited the article to apply this spelling. There are possibly hundreds of other articles that may be using the spelling without a cedilla, I'm not trying to impose my POV and changing all of them. I did it on this particular article because I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but the user does not accept it at all. He reverted me four times and then accused *me* of edit warring, on the talk page. He insists that facade is the correct spelling and that there needs to be an "article-level consensus" on the subject for it to be changed. I'm not asking for a block on the user, I just would like someone else to weigh in on this discussion. I particularly think that façade is a more suitable spelling and that the user is imposing his POV and acting as the "owner" of the article, but I will accept whichever solution is proposed by a neutral third party. Regards, —
capmo (
talk)
19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raoul mishima ( 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:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kelvintjy ( 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:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss.I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.
Page: New Albany, Mississippi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.240.113.219 ( 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:
Page:
Akademset (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Ssr (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: baseline version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Ssr talk page warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: an3-notice on Ssr's talk page
Comments:
I think these hostile responses are unacceptable and objectively unproductive. The material added by this user introduces seven or so undefined reference errors. There's one reference that's hooked-up, but all others cause errors. The edits this user made were not described in edit summaries, and I offered to help on the talk page. Their responses have not been WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Jonathan Gullis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
150.107.175.66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Removal of "British politician" from lead sentence:
Adding "ex-" to the lead sentence:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
The person making these edits behind this IP address appears to be uncommunicative, unaware of the policy about edit warring, and is constantly restoring these changed—which have now been opposed by at least seven different editors, including me—without engaging in any talk page discussion.
What's rather ironic and funny here is that this 150.107.175.66 IP address is actually the public IP I'm currently editing Wikipedia from. I discovered this edit war incidentally while using Wikipedia in a private browsing window, and so I tried to stop the edit war by sending the IP a friendly notice about edit-warring (I noticed there were "vandalism" warnings on the user talk page, which I know these edits aren't quite vandalism), as well as starting a discussion on the article talk page providing my opinion on the matter (although I did make one revert, with a good explanation).
More about this IP, it's a CGNAT network, meaning there are actually multiple customer connections on this single IP address. Doesn't look like a block would cause much collateral damage though, and I am aware the standard type of IP address editing block only prevents anonymous users from editing and not logged-out editors. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Emily Reid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomforx ( 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:
Page: James McMurdock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.64.200.38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Justification in line with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (conviction is now spent)."
The conviction in question is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act 1974.
All matters relating to this offence took place before his election. As such continued reference to this past incident is in breach of Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Editor has three times removed information relating to this person's conviction. Editor has posted on my Talk page Edits are based on British and European law. Do not reverse and similar on ADifferentMan ( talk · contribs)'s Talk page. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
He has now also replied to my warning with the same. Porterjoh ( talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Germany national football team (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Truefacts24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Uruguay_four_time_world_champions?
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the
WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith."
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Indian National Army ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rueben lys ( 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: Notice by Azuredivay
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou. I am not sure why my last edit hadn't been saved. The point of contention is not what "people believe". The contention is
WP:NPOV. I have written in this article (and many otehrs) over the last twenty years, and am quite familiar with W:RS as all my work would show. The article as I wrote it (and I will point out I do not claim ownership, but am damn proud of the what it was ten years ago) balanced the diametrically opposing view points of collaborator/traitors against the freedomfighter. Note NPOV is not dependent on WP:RS as the page on NPOV will tell any editor. There is necessarily two very opposing view points on this unit, and since 1950s (
Hugh Toye,s the war of the springing tiger onwards), there is a bias within British historians to decribe and insist on describing this unit as "collaborators" and collaborators only. I will challenge you to find a single Indian person in the street who will agree with this and will not find this description deeply offensive (as my google search has demonstrated). In India the unit is seen as "freedom fighter" (Note there is a
monument in Singapore paid for by Indians in memory of a memorial that was destroyed by the Allied forces in 1945. This is how the unit and its history is perceived in India and by Indians. The fact that it was blown up by allied forces will also give you an idea what perception the unit was held in by British/allied forces and the historians in Western Universities thereafter who wrote about this organisation.
Therefore to insist on a version that insists on imposing this deeply divisive and pejorative description in the very introductory sentence on the basis of a "imaginative history" is blatantly POV. When I wrote the article I introduced this divison on perspective in the introduction, and then dedicated an entire section to this controversy, in order the article was NPOV. Note the resources I used where by very well regarded Historians in published research work, from well regarded universities (the best of best of WP:RS). What has happened in the preceding four years whilst I moved on in real life was that this balanced perspective has slowly been chipped away to the point the pejorative description is now being insisted upon, and the editors insisting on this are using dubious resources (I wouldn't consider the work cited to be reliable, either the work themselves or the authors). My insistence is that there be an avoidance of perjorative terms and descriptions favouring one POV at the expense of another. This makes wikipedia an unreliable resource. I am sure none of us want that, and spoils the efforts made by other editors (including the historical me) who dedicate their own time. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The other thing to highlight is the version I have reverted from also corrected factual inaccuracies.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)