Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Gymrat16 reported by User:Brotherbenz (Result: Fully protected for three days Lifted early after agreement reached)

    [edit]

    Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink

    User being reported: Gymrat16 (talk · contribs)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [[2]
    1. [3]
    1. [4]
    1. [5]
    1. [6]
    1. [7]
    1. [8]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

    Comments:

    I have tried multiple times to get a consensus on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ice_hockey_rink page, and no effort. Keeps reverting any changes I make, to the "standards" he set for a ice hockey rink photo. I've reported before, but it wasn't 4 times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, deleted the first report of this, and the ANEW notice on his user page. Brotherbenz (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeps reverting the ANEW notice on his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gymrat16 Brotherbenz (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i am trying to negotiate with you look at your talk page Gymrat16 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected Three days full. Talk page discussion can get a lot farther when you're not able to go back to the article and revert to your preferred version. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We came to an agreement, thanks for your help. Brotherbenz (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have accordingly lifted the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robert92107 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Warned)

    [edit]

    Page: California High-Speed Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Robert92107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Phase 2 is not proposed, but authorized with no detailed route or funding yet"
    2. 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252079490 by DracaenaGuianensis (talk) Prop 1A authorized Phase 2, but did not fund it"
    3. 23:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC) "clarified status of Phase 2 in intro"
    4. 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "changed "proposed" to "authorized"; see discussion in Talk for a full description of the need for this
    5. 16:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "factual correction in PP1, planned -> proposed; see Talk for discussion; there has actually been prelim planning done on this, which is beyond mere proposing""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ re"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Future versus Proposed */re"

    Comments:

    Though not strictly violating 3RR, this user is clearly showing intent to continue reverting (e.g. explicitly saying they'd go against consensus, rejecting the 3RR warning) and has been edit warring in their preferred wording for quite some time now. They are discussing but also not stopping their editing of the article itself, so I'm requesting a partial block from editing the article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Robert92107 too, where the user has refused to engage. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Factual correction -- This dispute is over a misleading/incorrect modifier for the current status of Phase 2. The WRONG word is "proposed". Correct words proposed are "planned" or "future" or even no word at all. Work has been done on Phase 2, and no additional proposal or permission is necessary to incorporate this into the plan. However, Phase 2 is currently unfunded. This is discussed at length in the Talk section. FACTUAL CORRECTNESS needs to be a priority, and the current modifier is a deliberately misleading description of the status of Phase 2. Robert92107 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdJohnston: I'm surprised you let them off with only a warning considering that's their attitude: they think being (allegedly) right gives them the right to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reverend Stuart Campbell reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Already blocked indef)

    [edit]

    Page: Stuart Campbell (blogger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254015754 by AntiDionysius (talk) No justification has been offered for this reversion. Kindly discuss on the Talk page."
    2. 23:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253994035 by AntiDionysius (talk) You are required to seek consensus for your edits by discussing the matter on the talk page, not simply reverting."
    3. 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253857657 by Augmented Seventh (talk) No reason was given for this edit and the user has not engaged in discussion on the Talk page about it in the proper manner."
    4. 07:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "As noted in the Talk page, the previous version is a plainly maliciously incomplete account of events designed to give a deliberately misleading impression. As such it is significantly factually inaccurate and Wiki rules permit me to correct it by adding relevant and sourced context."
    5. 00:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Views on LGBTQ+ issues */ Quotes cited and removed are manifestly obviously from Graham Linehan, not Stuart Campbell."
    6. 16:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253705472 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) This quote is of no relevance or significance to anything. I did not vote in the manner referenced. "Man says a thing on Facebook one day" is not a noteworthy event."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ Reply"

    Comments:

    The user I'm reporting is the subject of the article in question. See also open section at COI noticeboard: WP:COIN#Stuart_Campbell_(blogger). MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The user above is plainly now acting in bad faith, rejecting consensus views and deliberately removing balancing sources. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this notice on user's talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked indefinitely by Star Mississippi. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually only p-blocked them from the article. @Daniel Case since you're here, would you or any other admin mind looking at their Talk to see if a broader block is merited. I'm logging off for the evening shortly. Star Mississippi 02:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do wonder why we haven't warned the subject of an article so much from editing it (my understanding is that there's a COI/N thread on it), I didn't see much need for anything further at present. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This perhaps indicates we have reached WP:NOTHERE territory. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ToBeFree has now blocked them indef without talk page access as a result of that edit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @AntiDionysius @Daniel Case @ToBeFree. I had disengaged after it ceased to be a productive conversation about their editing since I wouldn't be online to discuss the block. Star Mississippi 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When was it a productive conversation about their editing? Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Hi and thanks for the pings. 😅 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.175.12.221 reported by User:Vipz (Result: Blocked 3 days)

    [edit]

    Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 67.175.12.221 (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:

    1. Diffs listed in the previous report
    2. Special:Diff/1253651501
    3. Special:Diff/1253729214
    4. Special:Diff/1254039544



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1254123546

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1254126495

    Comments:
    Previously and recently reported to AN/3RR and blocked here. This appears to be a very persistent IP editor with the single purpose of edit warring over "Josip Broz Tito" and closely related articles, such as "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". The IP keeps changing, but this is a WP:DUCK. These two articles fall under WP:CT/EE and in my opinion need a permanent page protection. –Vipz (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Ybsone (Result: Pblocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13] "I don't think it is fair & non-partisan to call it far right."
    2. [14] "Calling it right wing is inaccurate"
    3. [15] (no explanation nor sources)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]


    Comments:
    User keeps deleting "far-right" from Fascism article constantly. User was warned. Contentious topic. Please block. YBSOne (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally user commented on the place of residence of another user as if it was "all you need to know about where his politics are.". YBSOne (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I can, however, say Mr. Spasm is to consider himself warned and should cease and desist from continuing to edit against clear consensus. As, despite expectations, the article does not presently fall within a contentious topic, I cannot even give him a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per a 1RR rule that was imposed in June, 2009, editors of Fascism are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction can be reported at WP:ANEW." YBSOne (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that 1RR may not be enforceable. An administrator enacted that 1RR in a discussion from 2009 at Talk:Fascism. There does not seem to be any community sanction or a WP:CTOP that would justify such a restriction. (A single administrator can't enact a 1RR on their own). The best you could do is refer to Talk:Fascism/FAQ to show there is an established consensus and then request admins to enforce that by blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ed. I would further add that any 1RR restriction, even imposed by the proper process, requires some sort of visible notice to be enforceable, and there isn't one above the edit window or on the talk page as there is with 1RRs imposed through CTOPS or CS.
    YBSOne did not mention this until now, after I had declined a report they made asserting purely a 3RR violation. There's a word for this .... laches, maybe? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported edit warring as was per redirect WP:ANEW from the warning notice I've quoted. That warning notice is seen by every one editing Fascism, including the reported user, who ignored consensus 3 times. Not up to me to decide which type of edit war was it. YBSOne (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases where we've blocked people for 1RR violations, this was mentioned in the original report. I can't speak (or, really, write) for other admins, but I wouldn't be surprised, if like me they first review the article history. I didn't see the editnotice until looking at the edit window on the page just now, and really neither I nor any other admin reviewing a AN3 report would have a reason to edit the page in the process.

    And in any case, like Ed I doubt a 15-year–old unilateral imposition by an admin is enforceable under our current policies. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also his third revert happened after the edit war warning from User:Firefangledfeathers. YBSOne (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An interposing edit-war warning does not automatically make the next edit a violation if it's not the third one (unless, of course, someone has been doing this on multiple articles or in slow motion). Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel Case, we got two more reverts today (1, 2). Though it's ancient history, this user has been sanctioned twice in the past for edit warring and once for repeated removal. There hasn't been a 3RR violation, but this is persistent edit warring despite prior sanctions and present warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pblocked from fascism, though not specifically due to this thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, WK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is my revert considered "Edit warring", yet putting the words "Far right" in there without a source to back up this ridiculous claim is OK?Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sourced, but it does not fit your disinformed political views. It is also a long standing consensus, see FAQ. YBSOne (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyunardo reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Article protected under new name)

    [edit]

    Page: Hwang Hyun-jin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Removed false/ misinformations and misleading parts." (IP)
    2. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Please I delete it because it wrong info"
    3. 05:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "This part is a rumor and incorrect"
    4. 05:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I deleted wrong part and rumors"
    5. 06:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC "This part was totally unrelated to his career" (likely sock)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."
    2. 05:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Hyunardo "/* October 2024 */ reply to Hyunardo"

    Comments:

    First edited as an IP with this diff: [18] Seems to have made an account after the first revert of content removal, and continued to remove the same content after account creation. Editor has no other contributions other than participation in this edit war. Editor advised to open discussion on talk page, and warned twice to no avail.

    This [19] is likely another sock attempting to remove the exact same content. RachelTensions (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, also reported for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyunardo. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one here and here and here and here
    I have a feeling this article is being meatpuppeted by people coordinating off-wiki. RachelTensions (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely, judging by the IPs pointing everywhere around the world. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week by Goodnightmush under its new name, Hyunjin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthseekeruk2024 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Compass Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Truthseekeruk2024 (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:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]
    6. [25]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

    Comments:

    New user appears to have signed up just to edit war this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:48f reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Declined, user retired)

    [edit]

    Page: Romans in sub-Saharan Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 48f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254349428 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)please do not erase onlly (as you did with a map without requesting discussion and approval).....and don't behave like a typical "BUSCAPLEITO" thanks"
    2. 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I have erased all the DAMAGE to the article done by a "buscapleito"...he has erased sections that are transferred/translated from other wikipedias (where they are accepted without problems) and he has also erased maps without asking a debate"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added original reference"
      2. 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added translation"
      3. 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."
    2. 15:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"

    Comments:

    User insists on adding original research to the article. Their edits would be interesting and helpful if they provided citations from citations from reliable sources. The one source they added appears to be from an Italian journal that does not confirm their claim. I have attempted to engage with editor on their talk page as well as the article's talk page, but they apparently refuse to discuss and compromise. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me like they're disagreeing with your removal of sourced content. They mention it was copied from a different language Wiki, which matches you saying its a French report in your summary. They would be entitled to another revert yet before they actually breach 3RR, bringing the article back to its original state before you removed the content.
    It might be best to remove this report and take it to the talk. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the "Rivista of Numismatica", there is no such periodical and it seems improbable that one would bear a name in Italian with an English preposition. The closest thing I could find is the Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini, which does have a volume 6 published in 1893 as cited by 48f. However, upon looking up the source, which is available on Internet Archive, the cited quote was not available. I have attempted to engage them in the talk page, but they instead replied with insults at their own talk page, as well as mine. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with me, user OXYLYPSE: I am totally disgusted by the harassment done against me by this CurryTime to the point that I am no more going to collaborate with the en. wikipedia (as a form of protest). I have written some history books, that I have published in italian, spanish and english language and I have never received the offensive comments and attacks that this CurryTime have done to me. Sincerely, I am shocked by the way this CurryTime behave....and that is why I called him a "troublemaker" or in his spanish language (I think he is from Chile or has Chilean parents) a "buscapleito". Regards. 48f (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined If the user retired (which seems to be a good thing overall given that he seems to be bragging about his incivility), no action need be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miyanky445 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked 72 hrs)

    [edit]

    Page: Oba (ruler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Miyanky445 (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:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]



    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:

    User:2605:8D80:682:E4A:FC80:D596:7C9B:7CD reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked 60 hrs)

    [edit]

    Page: Baalbek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2605:8D80:682:E4A:FC80:D596:7C9B:7CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "It is purely an Israeli claim, you have no right to edit that fact."
    4. 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) to 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
      2. 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view."
    2. 21:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Bro The Man reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Islam in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bro The Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [34]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Oct 30, 12:55 [35] Restoring preferred text.
    2. Oct 31, 03:39: [36] Restoring preferred text.
    3. Oct 31, 04:44 [37] Restoring preferred text.
    4. Oct 31, 05:27 [38] Restoring preferred version.



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

    Comments:
    Bro The Man has performed many reverts at the Islam in Australia article. In the last 24 hours there were four, and Bro The Man has also continued to add more material in the face of multiple editors disputing the new changes because of neutral point of view policy. Bro The Man has removed well-sourced text portraying Muslims in a negative light, and has persistently added text portraying Muslims in a positive light. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    non-involved editor here but may I know what is wrong with "portraying Muslims in a positive light"? Abo Yemen✉ 14:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is wrong with a balanced portrayal including positive things. The problem is non-neutral changes combined with edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality, The admin, Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."
    the article and my user talk has always been and continues to be available for you to explain explicitly why you differ in opinion. Bro The Man (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit [64]: Enforcement/upholding of Admin @Nick-D consensus and saving/rescuing their constructive edits edits. Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality
    Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."
    User Consensus that Islam in Australia page was dormant: User talk:LibStar#Edits to Islam in Australia
    Multiple Attempts at consensus:
    Edits referenced:
    Bro The Man (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No attempts at proposals or constructive [additive] edits suggested from both Oblivy and Binksternet. Bro The Man (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was canvassed in by @Bro The Man once the edit warring had begun. Although I had followed the page following some early edits by this user, I was not involved in this content dispute.
    My comments have been deleted from their user page but can be found here and here. In summary I said they needed to use the article talk page to gain consensus for disputed edits.
    User @Binksternet brought the content dispute to the article talk page, which was met with multiple WP:WallofText comments and then a series of edits claiming that consensus had been reached. I saw no evidence of movement towards consensus.
    I stepped in today when the user claimed in an edit summary to be reverting edits but was in fact creating a new version. After that @Bro The Man re-added some good faith edits which I did not revert, but I reverted an edit which in my opinion repeated the same behavior. I believe this editor is sincere but needs to engage with the WP:Five Pillars, study what WP:Consensus means, and stop the battleground behavior. Oblivy (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your endorsement of sincerity, that's actually really great!
    I'm "using battle ground tactics"? You reverted the article way past the record of my first edit, after Binksternet and I stopped after two reverts. I didn't challenge it and moved on. That is when i rescued the additions of other editors and enforced the Nick-D consensus. It's those actions that Binksternet is using in this submission against me that we're discussing now.
    Consensus was "do not use the phraseology that islam came before christianity. That religion settled in Australia". I did not use that phraseology. However the article has pre-existing information about indigenous groups holding islamic beliefs through an exchange of religious ideas after an early contact event.
    I added citations from publications such as: The National Museum of Australia (Agency of AusGov), Australian Department of Immigration, and 2 radiocarbon isotope studies. One of which was retrieved from a muslim burial site in Australia.
    These were placed in the body. However you reverted them, and I since not returned them. I did open a discussion on your talk page to ask for clarification on your objection: User talk:Oblivy#Islam in Australia: You have Conducted 2 reverts: 3rr reminder
    You have yet to reply. Bro The Man (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. Continuing to revert while telling others to use the talk page (in your edit summary) doesn't improve your credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alalch E. reported by User:The Blue Rider (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Tamara (given name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}

    Previous version reverted to: 1

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

    Comments:

    • User removed a large amount of sourced content, I reverted, and they kept reverting me instead of seeking consensus, furthermore they start harrassing me with bad-faith templates on my talk page threatning me that I will be blocked 1, 2, 3 and 4. I already asked them multiple times to seek consensus in the talk page and instead they do personal attacks to me, such as you have been showing a weak grasp of policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V and Please get a grip. Which shows that they do not plan to seek consensus and will likely continuing edit warring. The Blue Rider 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My response is at Talk:Tamara (given name)#The Blue Rider's mass revert. On the talk page, as I was editing, I was describing some of my edits. Some of the other edits of more self-explanatory nature such as adding the sources which I listed on the talk page were described in edit summaries. I was doing research, adding sources, and making incremental edits to fix what was a thoroughly broken article. During this, without engaging in a discussion, which I had already started on the talk page, and which follows up on concerns and dilemmas about content from other editors, The Blue Rider would simply revert en masse, repeatedly, all of those edits, pointlessly hindering my progress with the article, and not providing any useful feedback, critique or meaningful substantive opposition. From my perspective, The Blue Rider for whatever reason began to like the article the way it is, uncritically, and they had even nominated it for GA even though it was in a truly dismal shape, and had not even been stable, and then began to exhibit WP:OWNERSHIP behavior through wp:Status quo stonewalling—Alalch E. 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As further evidence of The Blue Rider's wish to impose their preferred version of the article, I cite how they falsely claimed that there was a consensus in the discussion involving their edit previously being contested Talk:Tamara (given name)#List of names removal, saying: There is a clear consensus, most people who partook in the discussion supported the split. But that was not a true statement. Soon afterwards, multiple editors made it clear to them that there had never been anything resembling such a consensus. —Alalch E. 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:OWNERSHIP's claim is definitely not true since I have achieved consensus and agreed with multiple other editors regarding their concerns with the article that can be seen in Tamara's talk page. All I am asking is for Alalch to discuss on the talk page their large removal of sourced content so we can achieve consensus. The Blue Rider 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what happened, and you seem unable to evaluate this matter objectively. After the following talk page sections: Talk:Tamara (given name)#Hindi origin and Talk:Tamara (given name)#Sanskrit origin were started by Altenmann, criticizing parts of the article which you had nominated for GA, you facetiously tried to brush off their absolutely valid concerns and made some very poor edits which you then gave up on, causing nothing but a waste of time of editors interested in improving that article. You now describe your withdrawal from such tendentious behavior as consensus on the talk page. This is why I told you to get a grip. —Alalch E. 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) me[reply]
    I'll point out that both editors are currently pushing up against (but perhaps not specifically violating) the 3RR, and @The Blue Rider has previously been advised by @ToBeFree, after a related edit war unblock discussion, that it'd be best to pump the brakes on participating in name articles for their own good. Obviously they haven't taken that advice.
    Additionally, @Alalch E.'s large adjustments to the article have effectively short circuited what is another ongoing discussion by making such large adjustments to the article that all opposing viewpoints in that discussion have become irrelevant. RachelTensions (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. I was addressing problems with the prose independently from the question of the list, and they are inherently independent from the list inclusion question. The list thing can't hinder rectification of glaring core content policy compliance problems. —Alalch E. 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ongoing discussion concerns one specific question: whether or not the list of name-holders should be included in the article. There was consensus that it should be retained in the encyclopedia, in contrast to TheBlueRider's decision to just delete the long-standing list (introduced in Nov 2006), but there was not yet a consensus as to whether it should be a separate list or part of the name article.
    Quite separately from that discussion, Alalch E. has done stalwart work to improve the quality of the information about the name, which previously mingled information about "Tamara" and about "Tamar", used some unreliable-seeming sources, etc. TBR had previously said that it was hard to find WP:RS: Alalch found RS and improved the article, step by step, with edit summaries explaining each improvement. TBR then reverted 11 well-explained edits to his previous preferred version, with edit summary "seek consensus before removing sourced content, all sentences are cited and there is no OR". Alalch understandably reverted that reversion, and there was another to-and-fro pair of reverts. PamD 22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that Alalch did stellar work, he mainly just removed sourced content, the vast majority of the current information on the Tamara page was written by me. The Blue Rider 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Thanks for the ping; I'll let someone else handle this report though as I'd be interested in others' opinions. I didn't yet look at the conflict again so I really have none.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SGHAS95 reported by User:Saqib (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Chaudhry Salik Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: SGHAS95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "Remove false information, lacks reliable resources"
    3. 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "It's fake information, which is why I removed it from here. This is not accurate."
    4. 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
    6. 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This newbie is continuously engaging in edit warring, despite receiving warnings not to do so. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a note: I beleive that the user may be using sockpuppets to delete the same information from the article, as evidenced here: [42]. --Lenny Marks (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely. I'll take a look at that. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bexaendos reported by User:Jenes (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Vitaliy Khomutynnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bexaendos (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:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

    Comments:
    I rewrote the article, which previously contained separate statements and facts. I will continue to refine it in the future. The last amendment is a generalization of the range of political meetings held by the politician. All statements have a link to the media. Before that, there was information about only one meeting. User:Bexaendos prevents the development of the page, holds on to random wording and cancels the refined wording. He ignores the offer to proceed to a constructive discussion. Jenes (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have always been as much as possible benevolent with you, but already it seems that you are trying to fool the whole community. You have been notified countless times (to which it is obvious that you have a WP:COI on this article, including you have cleaned all available versions of this article).
    You say you are going to perfect this article, but let's tell the truth that other than whitewashing this article you do nothing.
    The last change you have made is obviously removing well-referenced information and adding irrelevant information to the article, which generally has no place in the article. From the beginning I understood the strategy (because the editors who tried to clean up this article before you were less familiar with wikipedia). And after I blocked them you appeared in the article and in the same way try to clean up the article!
    I avoid making any attacks by being polite until the end. Once the responsible team will deal with this case I will provide more details and explain. And until then I avoid to give you any more comments because I did until now but as we see it was pointless... Bexaendos (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page looked like a set of facts. I managed to put together an article from it. Some sentences are imperfect. This is what the statement about one political meeting looked like, which I refined and got a broader picture. For what reasons such wording causes your indignation, we could find out on the Talk-page, and does not bring the case to arbitration. Jenes (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see 2 reverts, no edit war warning, and no new talk page discussion in almost 2 months, what's up with that? (Non-administrator comment) RachelTensions (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, I didn't play in further recoils. A suggestion for discussion is contained in the rollback comment. As you can see from Bexaendos comment, he deliberately ignores them. That is why we need an additional look at the situation. Jenes (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1254721956"