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:
Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
TylerBurden (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
Page: South Park: Joining the Panderverse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cjhard ( 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:
User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds a WP:SELFPUB to try to prove his point SanAnMan ( talk) 03:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Fairport, New York ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.249.162.249 ( 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:
Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Crampcomes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]
Comments:
Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mistamystery (
talk •
contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems more properly an AE matter since reporting not only a 1R breach but behavior. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [13] [14], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [15] [16] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question [17]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals [18], but he uncivilly refused [19]. Crampcomes ( talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
BTW, IMO there was no need to go to AE just because this involves an article in a contentious topic under 1RR; we have handled many other such reports here in the past as many of the regular admins who review reports here are familiar with how CTOPS works. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Nick Di Paolo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buzzy123 ( 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:
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:
[20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[29], Please see editors reply to warning here:
[30]
, editor has rejected the warning responding to @
General Ization: warning with Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure.
Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31], see second discussion at [32] under "Your edit to Black War".
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]
Comments:
Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re: Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure.
[34] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring. //
Timothy ::
talk 06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Users being reported:
Previous version reverted to: Instance 1, Instance 2
Diffs of the user's reverts: Instance 1:
Instance 2:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (has been warned previously for other edit wars)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, the IP, and User:BottleofStrawberryMilk
Comments:
Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, as someone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.
Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for the WP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines like WP:ENDORSE.
(excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out this legal threat made by 2601:805:8681:A140:D014:8FD5:E240:3B41. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: A Thousand Times Repent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 ( talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user is persistently adding puffery in Shreya Ghoshal and is engaging in edit war. Diffs of user :
See this [39]. He has originally add this POV content and is working hard to retain the POV content at the expense of WP:NPOV. Kindly look into this. Hineyo ( talk)
As you can see I am only reverting the disruptive edits done by this user. The user is removing well sourced content which is approved by several experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages which you can check in their edit history and I've made a report about it on this page as well. Thank you. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Differences of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:-
Hineyo ( talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user is continuously removing the content which is well-sourced and approved by multiple experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages like - Sonu Nigam, Shreya Ghoshal, Arijit Singh and when edits are reverted they are engaging in edit war.
Few Diffs of user :
1. Sonu Nigam - [41]
2. Shreya Ghoshal - [42]
3. Arijit Singh - [43]
These are few of the many examples and also the reason why this user is doing this is because - [44], here you can see the user first broke the WP:NPOV rule and actually added this "POV" content where singer Arijit Singh which I suppose is his favourite was called "Greatest of All Time" and none of the sources attached were actually supporting that claim. So when the edit got reverted the user started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists. In fact the user started removing the edits which are supported by the sources which clearly mentions the statement or sentence added on those respective Wikipedia page. For a fact Every source or reference had a "quote" but the user is just being unprofessional. Please look into this. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Notice posted on user's talk page: [45] JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Reply:- First of all the aforesaid user is not aware about Wikipedia works. No edit is permanent or is permanently approved by established user. This is an encyclopedia which will undergo constant evolution. He seems to be fan of Shreya Ghoshal which is why he is indulging in senseless edit war and is trying to retain puffery in the lead. Well I have removed only unsourced content and content which are backed by tabloids and weak sources. Reliable sources in Indian context is the Indian Express, The Hindu and Times of India. However the aforesaid user is citing non-reliable sources to justify puffery in the article of Shreya Ghoshal as he appears to be her fan. The user appears to dislike and have strong views against Arijit Singh he have added false information of him marrying and divorcing a women without provide reliable source. [46] This is quite dangerous for the said women's social dignity therefore I had to remove it. And the information about Singh's step children was disputed as it was not backed by multiple reliable sources therefore I considered it best to remove it. And it is a fact supported by reliable sources that Singh is considered currently India's top singer see [47] and Singh is the most streamed artist in Spotify for year 2023, kindly see [48] and even the internationally credible and reliable source like Forbes supports the statement [49] so it cannot be considered as POV pushing as credible RS exist for it. The aforesaid user removed that statement backed by Reliable sources, to which I have no problem as it can be seen in the edit history that I haven't indulged in edit war on Singh's page as I consider Wikipedia to be community driven encyclopedia and not my private property. My concern regarding Shreya Ghoshal is that it's status is of a 'Good Article', the persistent POV pushing by the aforesaid user without being backed by the reliable sources would lead to its eventual disqualification of 'Good Article' status. For instance in the 'Artistry' section in Ghoshal's article there is a line which says that 'Ghoshal is noted for wide vocal range's and the source provided is the Saregama website [50], which is not even a news media, it is a audio streaming website and the other source provided is [51], which is not RS. While removing the POV content I have explained in the edit history that the said content which also features in the lead of the article is not backed by reliable source, however the user User:JabSaiyaan kept on aggressively reverting the edits [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] since he appears to be diehard fan of Miss Ghoshal. In order to avoid edit warring, I discontinued editing the page and brought the matter here in good faith with a hope that the concerned administrators would preserve the articles 'GA' status. I would pray for administrative level protection over Shreya Ghoshal article in order to preserve its GA status. Thank you.
Hineyo (
talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Reply:- How can you teach me how Wikipedia works when you removed content from Shreya Ghoshal's page by giving vague reasons like "Source do not talk about versatility or vocal range" when the sources clearly talks about that and it's quoted in reference and also sources are "possibly written by a fan" like are you saying fans are writing for The Recording Academy (Grammy's). The sources from publications like Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu are also their along with the several other sources supporting same things or statements but yet you removed the content. Now lets come to Arijit Singh, even Forbes article anywhere isn't calling him a "GOAT" so that just ain't supporting the claim, and him having Spotify streams also has no corelation with the claim, the Spotify thing is in fact already mentioned in the page. On the other hand when same Forbes clearly calls Shreya "prolific" and "popular" in their article you conveniently removed that content. You started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists which includes Ghoshal and Sonu Nigam when misleading content from Singh's page was removed that says it all. Also about his wife, I was about to revert it myself because when I was searching for source I found that was just a rumour. There's no need for playing moral card because you are now removing a lot of previously added well sourced content about Singh's personal information from his page which is again vandalism and disruptive editing. You could've discussed about it in the talk section if you actually knows how Wikipedia works. Thank you. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Page: FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crowsus ( 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:
Crowsus reverted my removal of matches that were unrelated to the article topic. I attempted discussion on their talk page, but to no avail. I then started a discussion about the removal on the article talk page to get more opinions, and another editor (Amakuru) agreed that the content was undue for this article. This did not deter Crowsus, who continued to revert, several times with misleading edit summaries saying "per talk", even though they had not achieved consensus for their additions on the talk page. Amakuru posted an edit warring warning on their talk page, but Crowsus has since added their preferred content again. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Women in punk rock (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
DrKC MD (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
[62]
Comments:
Not technically a 3rr, but he has, despite significant discussion with netherzone and Binksternet, continued to re-add material to the page and reverting removals of the content he added. has also made some personal attacks. I suggested he use the RfC or Dispute resolution, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
They have been blocked for personal attacks on other editors. (See their user page). The edit war was has been a slow moving campaign to add content without consensus. Netherzone ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Gerard Piqué (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
2804:14c:7f80:819b:8c82:6600:972f:7a58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (on two IPs, but same geolocation)
Previous version reverted to: here
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: requested in two edit summaries
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: here
Comments:
This person across several IPs has made repeated attempts (earlier even than the scope of this report) to remove cited content from a
WP:RSP about a footballer having an affair, and has made no attempt at discussing it beyond one edit summary. This content has previously been
restored by other editors and is the consensus version.
—
ser! (
chat to me -
see my edits) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Kalki 2898 AD ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jayanthkumar123 ( 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:
No effort to engage in Talk page discussion, despite the edits being objected to by different editors. Clearly forewarned of 3RR there, but went ahead and deliberately did just that with a snarkish reply to go along on the Talk page. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Gajapati invasion of Bidar (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Avenger2000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [63]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]
Comments:
User suddenly appeared to the article Gajapati invasion of Bidar, and added information about a military conflict, that happened after the actual conflict, in which the article is actually in scope with. Moreover, user attempted to mix the first conflict with the second conflict, and made synthesis in the infobox. Can clearly see that I am asking them to not engage in edit war, even asked them if they need my assistance in improving the article (see their talk page). User is not being ready for it, and continued their actions.-- Imperial [AFCND] 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Horlick ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.160.228.56 ( 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:
Note: Subject has been warned sufficiently by another editor. Felida97 ( talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this.— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (
|
subject |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
103.52.220.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]
Comments:
Has also edited as 2409:40E1:29:4983:6485:60FF:FEA4:F17B and 2409:40E1:1073:8531:2CB1:AFF:FE4B:B3FA
I apologize for the confusion whereby I thought you had been the one making the reverts, as very often that's how things work out in reports here. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Nonetheless, my point still stands: Just because someone doesn't come to a talk page with a positive attitude to the article does not give you the right to revert away. An unspecific accusation of bias is still a legitimate subject for talk page discussion, although I admit that for them to demand you apologize before they give you answers is a bit presumptuous. And their attitude to EvergreenFir post-block entirely justifies revoking talk page access. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:17, 28 April 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:
Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
TylerBurden (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
Page: South Park: Joining the Panderverse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cjhard ( 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:
User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds a WP:SELFPUB to try to prove his point SanAnMan ( talk) 03:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Fairport, New York ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.249.162.249 ( 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:
Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Crampcomes (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]
Comments:
Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mistamystery (
talk •
contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems more properly an AE matter since reporting not only a 1R breach but behavior. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [13] [14], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [15] [16] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question [17]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals [18], but he uncivilly refused [19]. Crampcomes ( talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
BTW, IMO there was no need to go to AE just because this involves an article in a contentious topic under 1RR; we have handled many other such reports here in the past as many of the regular admins who review reports here are familiar with how CTOPS works. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Nick Di Paolo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buzzy123 ( 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:
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:
[20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[29], Please see editors reply to warning here:
[30]
, editor has rejected the warning responding to @
General Ization: warning with Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure.
Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31], see second discussion at [32] under "Your edit to Black War".
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]
Comments:
Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re: Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure.
[34] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring. //
Timothy ::
talk 06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Users being reported:
Previous version reverted to: Instance 1, Instance 2
Diffs of the user's reverts: Instance 1:
Instance 2:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (has been warned previously for other edit wars)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, the IP, and User:BottleofStrawberryMilk
Comments:
Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, as someone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.
Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for the WP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines like WP:ENDORSE.
(excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out this legal threat made by 2601:805:8681:A140:D014:8FD5:E240:3B41. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: A Thousand Times Repent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 ( talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user is persistently adding puffery in Shreya Ghoshal and is engaging in edit war. Diffs of user :
See this [39]. He has originally add this POV content and is working hard to retain the POV content at the expense of WP:NPOV. Kindly look into this. Hineyo ( talk)
As you can see I am only reverting the disruptive edits done by this user. The user is removing well sourced content which is approved by several experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages which you can check in their edit history and I've made a report about it on this page as well. Thank you. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Differences of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:-
Hineyo ( talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The user is continuously removing the content which is well-sourced and approved by multiple experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages like - Sonu Nigam, Shreya Ghoshal, Arijit Singh and when edits are reverted they are engaging in edit war.
Few Diffs of user :
1. Sonu Nigam - [41]
2. Shreya Ghoshal - [42]
3. Arijit Singh - [43]
These are few of the many examples and also the reason why this user is doing this is because - [44], here you can see the user first broke the WP:NPOV rule and actually added this "POV" content where singer Arijit Singh which I suppose is his favourite was called "Greatest of All Time" and none of the sources attached were actually supporting that claim. So when the edit got reverted the user started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists. In fact the user started removing the edits which are supported by the sources which clearly mentions the statement or sentence added on those respective Wikipedia page. For a fact Every source or reference had a "quote" but the user is just being unprofessional. Please look into this. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Notice posted on user's talk page: [45] JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Reply:- First of all the aforesaid user is not aware about Wikipedia works. No edit is permanent or is permanently approved by established user. This is an encyclopedia which will undergo constant evolution. He seems to be fan of Shreya Ghoshal which is why he is indulging in senseless edit war and is trying to retain puffery in the lead. Well I have removed only unsourced content and content which are backed by tabloids and weak sources. Reliable sources in Indian context is the Indian Express, The Hindu and Times of India. However the aforesaid user is citing non-reliable sources to justify puffery in the article of Shreya Ghoshal as he appears to be her fan. The user appears to dislike and have strong views against Arijit Singh he have added false information of him marrying and divorcing a women without provide reliable source. [46] This is quite dangerous for the said women's social dignity therefore I had to remove it. And the information about Singh's step children was disputed as it was not backed by multiple reliable sources therefore I considered it best to remove it. And it is a fact supported by reliable sources that Singh is considered currently India's top singer see [47] and Singh is the most streamed artist in Spotify for year 2023, kindly see [48] and even the internationally credible and reliable source like Forbes supports the statement [49] so it cannot be considered as POV pushing as credible RS exist for it. The aforesaid user removed that statement backed by Reliable sources, to which I have no problem as it can be seen in the edit history that I haven't indulged in edit war on Singh's page as I consider Wikipedia to be community driven encyclopedia and not my private property. My concern regarding Shreya Ghoshal is that it's status is of a 'Good Article', the persistent POV pushing by the aforesaid user without being backed by the reliable sources would lead to its eventual disqualification of 'Good Article' status. For instance in the 'Artistry' section in Ghoshal's article there is a line which says that 'Ghoshal is noted for wide vocal range's and the source provided is the Saregama website [50], which is not even a news media, it is a audio streaming website and the other source provided is [51], which is not RS. While removing the POV content I have explained in the edit history that the said content which also features in the lead of the article is not backed by reliable source, however the user User:JabSaiyaan kept on aggressively reverting the edits [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] since he appears to be diehard fan of Miss Ghoshal. In order to avoid edit warring, I discontinued editing the page and brought the matter here in good faith with a hope that the concerned administrators would preserve the articles 'GA' status. I would pray for administrative level protection over Shreya Ghoshal article in order to preserve its GA status. Thank you.
Hineyo (
talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Reply:- How can you teach me how Wikipedia works when you removed content from Shreya Ghoshal's page by giving vague reasons like "Source do not talk about versatility or vocal range" when the sources clearly talks about that and it's quoted in reference and also sources are "possibly written by a fan" like are you saying fans are writing for The Recording Academy (Grammy's). The sources from publications like Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu are also their along with the several other sources supporting same things or statements but yet you removed the content. Now lets come to Arijit Singh, even Forbes article anywhere isn't calling him a "GOAT" so that just ain't supporting the claim, and him having Spotify streams also has no corelation with the claim, the Spotify thing is in fact already mentioned in the page. On the other hand when same Forbes clearly calls Shreya "prolific" and "popular" in their article you conveniently removed that content. You started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists which includes Ghoshal and Sonu Nigam when misleading content from Singh's page was removed that says it all. Also about his wife, I was about to revert it myself because when I was searching for source I found that was just a rumour. There's no need for playing moral card because you are now removing a lot of previously added well sourced content about Singh's personal information from his page which is again vandalism and disruptive editing. You could've discussed about it in the talk section if you actually knows how Wikipedia works. Thank you. JabSaiyaan ( talk)
Page: FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crowsus ( 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:
Crowsus reverted my removal of matches that were unrelated to the article topic. I attempted discussion on their talk page, but to no avail. I then started a discussion about the removal on the article talk page to get more opinions, and another editor (Amakuru) agreed that the content was undue for this article. This did not deter Crowsus, who continued to revert, several times with misleading edit summaries saying "per talk", even though they had not achieved consensus for their additions on the talk page. Amakuru posted an edit warring warning on their talk page, but Crowsus has since added their preferred content again. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Women in punk rock (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
DrKC MD (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
[62]
Comments:
Not technically a 3rr, but he has, despite significant discussion with netherzone and Binksternet, continued to re-add material to the page and reverting removals of the content he added. has also made some personal attacks. I suggested he use the RfC or Dispute resolution, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
They have been blocked for personal attacks on other editors. (See their user page). The edit war was has been a slow moving campaign to add content without consensus. Netherzone ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Gerard Piqué (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
2804:14c:7f80:819b:8c82:6600:972f:7a58 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (on two IPs, but same geolocation)
Previous version reverted to: here
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: requested in two edit summaries
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: here
Comments:
This person across several IPs has made repeated attempts (earlier even than the scope of this report) to remove cited content from a
WP:RSP about a footballer having an affair, and has made no attempt at discussing it beyond one edit summary. This content has previously been
restored by other editors and is the consensus version.
—
ser! (
chat to me -
see my edits) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Kalki 2898 AD ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jayanthkumar123 ( 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:
No effort to engage in Talk page discussion, despite the edits being objected to by different editors. Clearly forewarned of 3RR there, but went ahead and deliberately did just that with a snarkish reply to go along on the Talk page. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Gajapati invasion of Bidar (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Avenger2000 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [63]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]
Comments:
User suddenly appeared to the article Gajapati invasion of Bidar, and added information about a military conflict, that happened after the actual conflict, in which the article is actually in scope with. Moreover, user attempted to mix the first conflict with the second conflict, and made synthesis in the infobox. Can clearly see that I am asking them to not engage in edit war, even asked them if they need my assistance in improving the article (see their talk page). User is not being ready for it, and continued their actions.-- Imperial [AFCND] 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Page: Horlick ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.160.228.56 ( 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:
Note: Subject has been warned sufficiently by another editor. Felida97 ( talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this.— Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (
|
subject |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
103.52.220.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]
Comments:
Has also edited as 2409:40E1:29:4983:6485:60FF:FEA4:F17B and 2409:40E1:1073:8531:2CB1:AFF:FE4B:B3FA
I apologize for the confusion whereby I thought you had been the one making the reverts, as very often that's how things work out in reports here. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Nonetheless, my point still stands: Just because someone doesn't come to a talk page with a positive attitude to the article does not give you the right to revert away. An unspecific accusation of bias is still a legitimate subject for talk page discussion, although I admit that for them to demand you apologize before they give you answers is a bit presumptuous. And their attitude to EvergreenFir post-block entirely justifies revoking talk page access. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)