:*'''Result:''' Page semiprotected two weeks by [[User:Roy Smith]]. The same IP is included in [[Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2000:0:0:0:0:0/35|a /35 range]] that is under a one-year partial block applied by [[User:Ohnoitsjamie]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' Page semiprotected two weeks by [[User:Roy Smith]]. The same IP is included in [[Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2000:0:0:0:0:0/35|a /35 range]] that is under a one-year partial block applied by [[User:Ohnoitsjamie]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
== [[User:Dr.AndrewBamford]] reported by [[User:Spike 'em]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Dr.AndrewBamford]] reported by [[User:Spike 'em]] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|University of Oxford}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|University of Oxford}}
Line 391:
Line 391:
User is edit warring on a range of UK university articles and refuses to discuss [[User:Spike 'em|Spike 'em]] ([[User talk:Spike 'em|talk]]) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
User is edit warring on a range of UK university articles and refuses to discuss [[User:Spike 'em|Spike 'em]] ([[User talk:Spike 'em|talk]]) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours. The user's last 50 edits are mostly reverts on various UK universities. They have never posted to a talk page. This behavior probably won't continue much longer. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
== [[User:Dentren]] reported by [[User:Bedivere]] (Result: Blocked for a week) ==
== [[User:Dentren]] reported by [[User:Bedivere]] (Result: Blocked for a week) ==
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.
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.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
IP editor is persistently readding copyright content to this draft, which has a history of revision deletion for the same reason. DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 31 hours. The IP editor persists in restoring copyright violations to the draft. The history shows many revision deletions by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must first point out that these past days, I was blocked temporarily for edit warring despite not breaching 3RR. I feel that the experience has helped me greatly to identify when edit warring and certainly breach of 3RR is the case.
User:BilCat has single-handedly (ie without consensus or support from other users) edit warred on Mil Mi-10 beginning with this edit on 19th June. Since then he has not left the article alone pretty much day and night. Just a short time ago, BilCat corssed a red line and violated 3RR.
It is my understanding that BilCat is well aware of 3RR and the rules on edit warring based on this edit. I must warn that where he breached 3RR his summary claimed "rvv" (I think reverting vandalism). If he believes that I committed vandalism when he is welcome to report me to the vandalism noticeboard but I was not doing anything of the nature. All I saw was wasted spaces that were not improving the article. I do not believe BilCat should escape sanctioning particularly after what I went through just a week ago. --Sportspop (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The reasons specified in BilCat's summaries (unsourced) are not covered by Wikipedia:3RRNO. Vandalism is, but his claim is false and nobody will agree with him that anything amounted to vandalism. --Sportspop (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't why know you restored an unsourced claim when you where clearly aware of the problem of the lack of a citation, which at the time seemed like vandalism to me. Are you in the habit of reverting legitimate reversions of unsourced claims? I didn't warn the user adding the content several times, and even told them repeatedly on my talk page they needed a reliable source. I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR tonight,but otherwise my edits and warnings were proper. Anyway, another user had supplied a reference, so we can all move on from here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This claim isn't "proper" by any definition. Plus there's since been a fifth. You know the rules and you know when it is ok and not ok to revert. Especially with three different editors on the same day. --Sportspop (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now the user has posted personal attacks on my talk page and in his edit summary, calling me arrogant, along with demands that I don't post on his talk page,and hoping that I get banned for my arrogance! Really? Ok. Well, I'm headed to sleep now, and I hope this can all be dealt with in my absence. The issue with the article has been addressed with a source, and all I did in my last edits was to add the source and fix a date. As I said, my breach of 3RR was unintentional, and I won't cross that line n the future. BilCat (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a matter of opinion and does not exonerate four reverts, and a fifth which happened after he knew about the report. --Sportspop (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No action. BilCat has acknowledged the edit-warring violation, and the article has apparently been fixed. Sportspop, this malformed report smacks of sour grapes because of your recent block for edit-warring. You are a new user, and you have not gotten off to a good start. I strongly recommend that you find more useful things to do than to hunt out edit-warring by other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this hasn't been archived, and User:Sportspop has requested that I not post on his talk page, I'll add this here. Sportspop, I was very tired last night, and should not have been editing because of this. I was frustrated because the other user kept making the same edit over and over, despite repeated warnings to add a reliable source. Instead of seeking page protection and/or starting a discussion on the article's talk page, I just kept reverting, hoping they'd get the message that a reliable source was required. When you reverted my revert, I got angry and took it out on you. I was wrong, and I take full responsibility for that. At that point I went offline, and then, stupidly, I returned about an hour later and found out you'd filed this report. Some of my comments above were also made in anger, and for that I apologize too. We've never interacted before, that I know of, but I do hope that if our paths cross again, we can have a civil interaction. I will not post on your talk page again, except for required notices such as informing you of ANI reports, etc. (Those are not optional.) @Bbb23: Thanks for not blocking me, and I promise to be much more careful of edit warring in the future. Finally, as it turns out, one version of the Mi-10, the Mi-10K, was apparently still in service as of 2014, and may still be in service somewhere! That's why we require reliable sources, and we just don't take someone's word for it. BilCat (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat.Thanks for explanation. As we got off to bad start that needn't have been as it was, I'll discard what I said about you not posting on my talk page and if you need to, you're welcome by me. I generally aim not to provoke warnings but don't always get things right myself. All the best! --Sportspop (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[9]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[10]
Comments:
Alessiorom13 has been engaged in a non-neutral long-term edit war at the article MJ the Musical. Starting on April 30, talk page discussion among several editors has returned again and again to Alessiorom13's attempted whitewash of the article, by way of diminishing negative reviews and adding poorly sourced positive reviews. Alessiorom13 has not violated WP:3RR in the strict sense but has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, persistently reverting attempted improvements by others. A few minutes after receiving my edit-warring notice, then countering with an edit-warring warning posted on my talk page,[11] Alessiorom13 turned around and restored their preferred version.[12] This shows they are aware of the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution would be partial block from the page in question. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said about User:Binksternet who has been participating and started this so called "edit war". As you can see on the Talk:MJ the Musical. Consensus from various different users has been reached yet ignored by User:Binksternet on this very topic. Alessiorom13 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result:User:Alessiorom13 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: User ZimZalaBim refuses to allow edits to the following text, engaging in reversions and threats:
A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube,[1] specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform.
The source cited (#2) simply defines “YouTuber” as “video bloggers (vloggers) who regularly post videos on their personal YouTube channels“ , makes no mention of the “main or only [YouTube] platforms” qualifier and relies on a source from 2009 for its citation.
ZimZalaBim rejects the following modification:
A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube. While the term originally applied to those whose main or only platforms were one or multiple YouTube channels or personalized subpages of the platform, it has since expanded to include those who also utilize similar video platforming services that compete against YouTube…
ZimZalaBim rejects the following sources as “unreliable:” based upon the inclusion of the first:
ZimZalaBim argues that the three sources above do not use the word “YouTuber” and thus are not relevant. The undersigned argues the following:
The source used to justify the qualification “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” says no such thing and is a whole-cloth invention of the original author who wrote it
Any inference of the authenticity of the above qualifier would be based solely upon the state of the video-blogging market as it existed in 2009, not 2022.
That the three proposed sources do not use the term “YouTuber” is irrelevant to the proposed changes, as qualifier as is not supported by any source and is an invention of the author (and premised upon 2009 market conditions, no less).
That ZimZalaBim is displaying an emotional attachment to the concept of “YouTuber” consistent with his qualifier (or the qualifier of the original author of the text) not supported by any source and based upon 2009 market conditions
That ZimZalaBim is displaying an ideological bias against ANY source that challenges the aforementioned emotional attachment
That the qualifier “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” should either be properly sourced, removed or updated with a more accurate qualifier that reflects 2022 market conditions.
That this Wikipedia entry should not be used as a public relations tool for YouTube and its affiliated brands.
Trying not to give this too much credence, but you can read my comments to Avica1988 on their talk page and the YouTuber talk page where I try to explain the logic of why their edits are not acceptable. Lots of bad faith and mis-use of NPOV templates, etc. --ZimZalaBimtalk 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZimZalaBim does not address the merits of the complaint Avica1998 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Both User:Avica1998 and User:ZimZalaBim are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at YouTuber without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "No sir, houston native. I’m literally on houston Bay Area food groups right now as we speak. We do not claim this as our hot dog, I looked up houston hot dog and there is zero source for this, the hot dog you claim is a houston dog is actually called a true dog CREATED BY A LOS ANGELES NATIVE. The article included in this article Even states he is from Los Angeles. A Texas dog is a New Jersey styled hot dog that’s been deep fried in oil. So please as a houston native we are offended."
01:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "There is no such thing as a houston styled hot dog coming from a houston native. The hot dog provided was a menu item offered at a houston area hot dog restaurant created by a Los Angeles native. Please don’t readd this because it’s stupid."
14:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094416030 by Hey man im josh (talk) (The article does not assert that Aaron Parnas' money was used in a donation, only that he sent $5300 to Aaron Investments. It is improper to speculate that his money went to Trump when there is no sourcing to support that)."
13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094415209 by Pennsylvania2 (talk) (The FEC is responsible for handling all political donations. The cite to the FEC page proves that Aaron never made any donations to Trump. As a result, it is improper to assert that he made donations, when he did not). Stop spreading libellous information."
13:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094413016 by Hey man im josh (talk) This was a constructive edit, as it is improper to (1) cite a blog piece that acknowledges that it is speculating and (2) never states that the $5300 was for a donation to anyone, let alone Trump. This 5300 was never implicated in any other article or legitimate source."
13:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is improperly sourced. The article literally notes that it cannot determine what the money was for, and notes that they could be birthday gifts: We of course don’t know the source of these funds Aaron put into one of many entities his father named after him. Some were incorporated around the time Aaron was born. The money could be as innocent as birthday gifts from friends and family. Confirming this with FEC reports would be proper sourcing."
13:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is still not properly sourced. There is no indication that the $5300 was "donated" to fund Trump inaugural events. The proper source here would be to look at FEC reports to see whether Aaron Parnas made any donations to Trump or his Committee(s). Moreover, the pictures remain improperly sourced."
02:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is not sourced. The first article references pictures posted by Lev Parnas, not Aaron. If Aaron was in one of the pictures, that does note mean "Parnas (referring to Aaron) posted the photographs." The second source does not even have Aaron's name in it. Instead, it is more appropriate for Lev Parnas' page as he created the Aaron Investments entity, as noted by the article."
16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "This information is not supported by the citation included. The citation included refers to Lev Parnas, not Aaron Parnas. This is flat out incorrect information."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user is WP:NOTHERE. They're edit warring in a manner that is completely unproductive. Appears to be a single purpose account for editing on Aaron Parnas, as that's where all of their edits since registration have been. Most of their edits are removing large chunks of content that often is just added back later. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editing is completely proper. The source cited comes from a blog and asserts that Aaron Parnas sent $5,300 to Aaron Investments. The source does not assert that Aaron's money was ever used to donate to Trump or the Trump campaign. The source only cites to approximately $325,000, coming from Igor Fruman that was donated to Trump. The source merely asserts that Aaron's wire transfer exists, not that the money was used to fund a political donation. By asserting that it was, without any legitimate source to back it up, is extremely dangerous and libelous. This comes after repeated efforts by the individual who included the source to make outlandish allegations on Aaron Parnas' page that have since been disproven. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jol451shore1, did you happen to read my warnings on your page about edit warring? I want to quote part of the first warning I placed on your talk page;
The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus.
Regardless of intent, there's been a disagreement on the article content and you've been edit warring about it instead of allowing for discussions to take place and play out on the article talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted for the future, I look forward to discussing this on the talk page, if necessary. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I can appreciate your intentions and I hope that all is smooth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. Normally I would block the editor that is violating 3RR but in this case I'm not convinced that EmptyWheel is a reliable source either - it does appear to be a blog, and we certainly can't use a blog to source a negative element in a BLP. If someone can provide evidence that Emptywheel is reliable, then that's a separate issue. In the meantime, I've fully protected the article for a month, so there's time for an in-depth discussion of reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also just point out that there's a specific exemption to the edit-warring policies at WP:3RRNO, which states the one of the exemptions is "Removing contentious material that is libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Now one could certainly argue that edits like this are poorly sourced, and they're certainly biased. Material like that should definitely be impeccably sourced, and this isn't. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources (not just that site) that show Parnas donated the money. See Page 16 [16]. This comes from the Daily Beast, which is a reliable source.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Daily Beast page does not show that Aaron Parnas donated any money. All that it shows is a screenshot that Aaron Parnas sent 5,300 dollars to Aaron Investment. It also shows over 1 million dollars worth of money coming into Aaron Investment. The Daily Beast page does not assert that this money went to America First, and the Emptywheel blog asserts that only 325k of the 1+ million dollars went to the PAC. No source says that Aaron Parnas' money went to the pac, or that the money sent has anything to do with a political contribution. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All we know from the Daily Beast is that he donated the $5,300. My suggested edit never says it necessarily went to the Trump PAC. It reads "Parnas donated $5,300 to a shell company named after himself called “Aaron Investments” that his father used to hide assets and avoid creditors. Aaron Investments went on to donate $350,000 to American First Action, a pro-Trump PAC." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast never says that he "donated" any money, merely that three separate wire transfers were made. These could have been for household expenses, personal expenses, etc. There is absolutely no relevance to including this information, especially if it merely discusses Lev Parnas' actions, not Aarons. Your suggested edit is merely biased, with no factual relevance or support. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYBEAST: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
user continues to whitewash and add copyvios to articles despite warnings and reaching out on talk page PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be UPE as well based on the username FRANKHLNl (FRANK HLN = HLN = herbalife nutrition) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've now added yet another edit to their war and have completely ignored their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partially blocked from Herbalife Nutrition given the persistent edit warring with an apparent COI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
All these 5 edits within 24h to reword "racial slur" to "nigga". Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First edit shown was not a revert. I have also initiated a talk page discussion which the user making this report has to have known of before making this report since it is mentioned in an edit summary. I'm not sure what this user is wanting out of this report other than possibly a punitive block. -"GhostofDan Gurney" 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reported you because there is a possibility you continue edit warring. It's up to admins to decide if a block is necessary. You need to understand that editwarring is not okay, you do not seem to understand that. After starting a discussion on the talk page, you still continued reverting. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GhostOfDanGurney, your last revert was at 13:58. This report was filed at 15:05. You responded here at 15:08. Your edit was reverted at 16:58 by another editor. You could have self-reverted but did not. It is only now that a block could be considered punitive, not when you said so. Nonetheless, consider yourself warned. If you resume the edit war, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1094472787/1094482255
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Special:Diff/1094481231/1094485592 (by reporter)
Special:Diff/1094486178 (by User:Yae4)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1094490395
Comments:
Introducing original research or questionable sources (disputed citations) to the article. More warnings or WP:DR may be the way to go. I would like to revert again (I'm not the only one to disagree with User:Yae4) until consensus is found on the talk page, but I won't continue this edit war. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I did a lot of work on this Article over the last day or two, only to see a "swarm" of dormant, single purpose, and IP editors undo half my work with virtually zero discussion. As stated at the Talk page, the IP editor has added other similar primary-source information. Actually, they restored what I added, but somebody deleted: My add[22]; their restore[23]Also please note my bcc of Administrators in my Talk comments, and the lack of any response or dialogue by the Reporter to my Talk comments; and my request for semi-protection.[24] I try not to, but also suspect puppetry, but was dragging feet on asking for investigation, in hopes of getting some real dialogue or consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember what the guideline or essay is named here on enwiki, but editors can be busy and not respond (I think the guideline or essay said to give maybe up to 3 days to respond). I did not have time to respond to talk in 31 minutes, however I did so once I became aware of it and had time. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of one week (partial)Yae4, after choosing a revert at random, I was looking at your revert edit summary RE: twitter (diff) and, like the IP editor (diff), I found myself confused as to what that has to do with anything. I presume it's about you wanting to omit the qualifier that it was stated, specifically, by Derrek Lee (while the IP editor wants to include it). Personally, I'm not sure why that entire paragraph about Jack Dorsey's tweet is even worth mentioning at all, Derek Lee'ing or not. But then again, this is the first time I've heard of this OS. The point, though, is that this one revert I sampled randomly (which just happened to be yours) did not add up for me. El_C 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because my intent was to undo "Anonymous526" edits; not the "84.250.14.116" edit which occurred 7 minutes before my rollback, and was not observed by me until after. Usually articles like this have much less activity. I agree Dorsey's tweet is insignificant, but GrapheneOS fans seem to believe Tweets are the bee's knees... Anyway, thanks for the wiki-vacation. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) while the IP editor wants to include it I had no intended involvement in regards to the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute between User:Anonymous526 and User:Yae4; when I became aware the rollback on my diff wasn't intended, I excluded my maintenance tag diff from Yae4's rollback ("fixed" the rollback) and subsequently became uninvolved in that Twitter dispute. In other words, I had no real role in the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 01:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yae4, if you wish to take a wiki-vacation just for not being able to edit one page out of six million for one week, well, that is certainly your prerogative. The random example/sample is not that important, it was just confusing to me. I'm not really following the explanations regarding it, but I don't think it's important that I do. What's important that you do, however, Yae4, is to watch out for WP:3RR in the future. IP, that wasn't a WP:ROLLBACK, it was just a revert (i.e. Tag: Reverted, per se.). El_C 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I just checked and Yae4 doesn't even have the rollback user right. They don't have any WP:PERMs, in fact, aside from having gained the extended confirmed one automatically (500 edits, 30 days). El_C 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having been already banned from climate change articles reduces the total available articles significantly, as I'm sure you're also aware. Whatever you technically call it I see "restore this version" on old versions of article pages, which to me as non-wiki expert is a rollback. Consider me reminded of 3RR, and how a swarm of probably connected users can revert-bate someone easily. Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware (or maybe I was at one time and had forgotten since?). Why would you presume I'd be aware? Was I connected to reviewing or enforcing that sanction? The reason I corrected the IP editor wrt them saying you've used WP:ROLLBACK to revert (which obviously you did not), was to highlight the following tautology: since you don't have that WP:PERM, you obviously can't use it, thus, you can't be sanctioned for misusing it.
To clarify a bit further: one could use a non-rollback revert that's accompanied by an automated edit summary. Like, for example, using 'naked' WP:UNDO (i.e. without any custom text added). But again, that's not the same thing as rollback because undo isn't a perm (and rollback could be used rapidly while undo cannot).
When I became an admin back in 2005, only admins had access to rollback. Now, of course, it's a perm that non-admin could also have. But even back in those olden days, folks (admins) would frequently get in trouble for rollback mis-use (i.e. when using it in content disputes, failing to limit its usage to vandalism/disruptive editing, etc.). HTH El_C 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you checked logs and maybe looked at user pages. Also, I have a recollection of you siding with Jzg/Guy on some issue and claiming "non-involved" at some point, but can't put fingers on that right now, so water under bridge, almost. Every-day for you. Unusual surprise for me, I know. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at logs, just user rights (prompted by the IP's rollback claim). Sorry, I have no memory of that. I've blocked close to 10,000 users and protected close to 10,000 pages, so the expectation that I'd recall this or that from a while ago, while frequent (example), isn't really realistic. El_C 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
01:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094509062 by 47.227.95.73 (talk) Back off. I changed the head titles for a reason. See talk page you idiot."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
It seems the situation is that they were blocked about a month ago for edit waring on the same page and have now resumed. They've been warned to not edit war on their talk page and in an edit summary since their block ended. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[32]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[33]
Comments:
As is typical in Indian Christian articles, unsourced edits to claim continuity with ancient Christians are prevalent. IP adds material that all fail verification and has ignored warnings and requests for discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I didn't look terribly closely at this case. I noticed what looked like an IP using canned edit summaries and edit warring, reverted and warned as a good measure. When I was informed the IP may have been doing good faith edits, I reverted my warning and left them a note about edit summaries. I was doing some light RC patrol during downtime at work and did not have the time to analyze the edits fully (hence my decision to apologize and undo the warning, which based on this may have been better left in place), so I am afraid I won't have much else to offer here. Thanks for the ping. ASUKITE 16:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Roy Smith. The same IP is included in a /35 range that is under a one-year partial block applied by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Rankings and reputation */Restored university rankings table following an unhelpful edit, where important information was omitted."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is edit warring on a range of UK university articles and refuses to discuss Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 72 hours. The user's last 50 edits are mostly reverts on various UK universities. They have never posted to a talk page. This behavior probably won't continue much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Presidency */ please make a convincing case in the talk page before insisting in unilaterally removing sourced poll content from WP:RS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Just a day after their block for edit warring has expired, Dentren is back at it restoring a section that has been removed after discussion at the talk page mostly (except for Dentren himself) agreed the opinion polling section should not be included at this time. I did not revert their actions since I am not starting myself an edit war, for which I was also blocked recently. Bedivere (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bedivere continues as he has done before to do unilateral removal of well-sourced content without engaging in discussion first. A close look at the history of the article shows this disruptive pattern. And again, Bedivere is not a legitimate user but a sockpuppet of banned user Diego Grez-Cañete. Dentren | Talk 02:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of one week Restoring the opinion poll material was clearly against consensus on talk page. And do not repeat your sockpuppetry claim as fact since the SPI closed without a check being done. Nothing will come of this except more and longer blocks as long as you continue to not AGF here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23 February 2022 "TALKHEADPOV: “heading should … not communicate a specific view about it.” The discussion is about what aspects constitute OR, if any. Titling the section OR is unquestionably a specific view on that subject."
Cambial Yellowing has gone over 3RR to change a talkpage header on a topic I began. This is a reactivation of previous attempts to do so from February [34][35]. (Pre-emptively noting that while there are some IP edits doing the same in the history, these are emphatically not Cambial Yellowing, but more of the socks in question.) CMD (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not lie about other editor's behaviour, Chipmunkdavies. As can be seen from the diffs you provide, exactly two of those edits are reverts, compared to your three. My other edits have sought to find a compromise that includes the phrase "original research" which you seem eager to include, while maintaining a neutral heading. The bland "sockpuppet OR" phrase tells editors nothing about the discussion content.
In future, do not fabricate actions to pretend I have made reverts, when my edits are clearly not reverts, and are seeking to accommodate or compromise to your concerns.
Trying to make the same edit in different ways is reverting. As regards to the mention of sanction gaming and fabrication, all the diffs are presented above without modification. CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying that you try to justify your misrepresenting other editor's actions by doing more of the same. "Trying to make the same edit" - what does this even mean? If I had tried to make the same edit, I would have achieved it. Plainly this edit (23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)) and this edit (02:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) and this (02:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) are not trying to make the same edit - I don't even use anything close to the same words. It is you who have repeatedly reverted to the exact same inappropriate POV wording for reasons that are unclear. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, User:Cambial Yellowing has only made 3 edits to Talk:Malayan Emergency [36], [37]and [38]. Techinally he has not yet violated 3RR, there has to be a fourth revert in a 24 hour period in order to be an violation of 3RR, that has not yet happen yet so an admin should consider it as a No Violation. Chip3004 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used. The wording is specifically tailored to the topic being raised, which was various OR added by sockpuppet. Chip3004, I linked four diffs from the past few hours above, and the bright line doesn't change the fact this is a sudden re-attempt at something previously tried in February. CMD (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used. No, it doesn't mean that. My edits are clearly different, as you (rather obliquely in editsum) objected to the initial title change. All your edits are the same and with essentially no explication or explanation in ES - that's edit warring.
I note with interest Chipmunkdavies that you had edit-warred with several IPs over the same issue after the end of our earlier talk page discussion:
1234
Perhaps you can explain why you are willing to edit war so repeatedly to maintain a particular POV? Cambial — foliar❧ 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the reference to oblique objection, I included a specific response on the talkpage at the time. As for the POV assertion, I continue to not understand this assertion. What is my POV here, that unsourced or falsely supported edits are OR? CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the reason at the time. My reason did not preclude any number of possible alternative headings which you could have used to maintain a neutral intro for other editors who may join the discussion in future. Instead you reverted to your singular version, multiple times with other editors, and then again when I tried alternatives which included the phrase "OR" which you say is the important issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following as to what my supposed POV is. WP:OR is not a POV, it is policy. Getting off-topic for this board, but to show again, the discussion was raised about the Sockpuppet OR removed in this edit. The text involved that was added/changed including the addition of 13 sources: Newsinger 2013 p.220, Newsinger 2013 p.219, Hack 2018 p.203, Newsinger 2013 p.218-219, Leary 1995 42-43, Siver 2009 (no page), BBC 2021 (audio), Tilman 1966 p.407-419, Newsinger 2013 p.221, Newsinger 2015 p.33, Zahari 2007 p.102, Komer 1972 p.8. Of these, none stood up to scrutiny and only one remains in place (Newsinger 2013, p. 220., and I don't think anyone has checked it, however it feels relatively low risk given Newsinger 2015, p. 52. was already there). I'm not sure how much more OR you can get. Furthermore, looking into it now, most of these appear to have been randomly copied from elsewhere in the article. Komer 1972 p.8 seems to have been invented literally because it sat between an existing Komer 1972 p.7 and a Komer 1972 p.9. Remarkable. CMD (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has suggested WP:OR is a POV. Arguing against a point no one has made is a waste of time. The question is over your explicit claim that all the content you removed *is* OR. Given that a good deal of the content remains in the article, supported by scholarship, this does not bear out. The Siver and Newsinger sources that you removed remain in the article (the Siver in a later expanded edition; both versions support the text). The bulk of the discussion was about the content sourced to Siver, which you inaccurately claim was referenced in only two of your comments (it is in five) and which you call an "unexpected derailment" despite being content you removed and then started a talk section about claiming it was original research.
Back to the topic. You made eight reversions to your exact same Heading claim of OR, four within 24 hours in Feb and three within the last 24 hours:
Attempts to rewrite completely differently, to include what you say is the issue neutrally, you ignored: you simply continued reverting. You then come here and misrepresent another editor's actions, and then misrepresent the content of the earlier discussion directly to me, on my talk page. As though I wouldn't notice your claim was not accurate. It's not clear what your aim is in misrepresenting this scholarly content from a detailed academic source as OR, or why you refuse any alternative solution to avoid misrepresenting it as such. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To try and be clear, I have sought clarification on what the point is supposed to be, not argued against anything. Regarding what you say is my claim, I did not claim I only referenced Siver twice, I claimed that only two of the comments did not touch on the overall topic of OR. Regarding Siver and Newsinger, I did not remove them from the article, they were already in the article, as I have previously stated. They are just no longer used as fake sources. I did not misrepresent the topic of the discussion on your talkpage or elsewhere, I repeat again that it was a discussion that I started, so I am reasonably sure I know what the topic for it was. At any rate, I find myself repeating things, and I think I have covered everything above. The continued accusations of misrepresentation are saddening, as well as feeling oddly misdirected. CMD (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. But you did remove those sources from the section that you altered. Claiming “I didn’t remove them”, because they happen to additionally be used in a completely different section of the article, is quite disingenuous. 2. You stated, in text and ES, "Only 2 of my 8 comments were about the Geneva Conventions" - the content supported by Siver. Five of your comments are about Geneva Conventions and mention that content by name. 3. It’s unfortunate that you feel saddened. Suggest that if you refrain from misrepresenting other editor’s actions by claiming edits are reverts when they plainly are not - in fact they introduce utterly different text to fit with your expressed concerns - this may reduce the chance of causing such negative emotions in yourself in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responding because of the assertion of disingenuity, I'm not sure why this matters, but the sources were not all used in a completely different section. Newsinger was (and still is) used even earlier in the lead! They are of course no longer used where they were inserted as fake references, barring the one exception I covered in an earlier comment. Siver was, again, was not used to support the Geneva Convention text. For reference the edit is here, and Siver is being used to support the Orang Asli sentence. Again, the issue is the usage in this specific edit, rather than the existing uses on the page, or the subsequent uses you have found. There has not been any misrepresentation on my end, and given my concerns are continually misrepresented, here they are expressed explicitly: I opened a talkpage discussion on a specific topic, with a title to reflect that topic. Please kindly refrain from altering this. CMD (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you claim to have done, you determined that the sources did not support the text, you must have read their content in order to achieve this. It would take quite some effort to miss the fact that Siver entirely focused - the entire article - on substantiating exactly the claim made one sentence earlier than where it was placed - content you removed claiming it was original research. Not a “fake reference” but a misplaced citation; misplaced by exactly 23 words in one sentence. I’ve quoted you accurately about your claimed concerns; not clear how you imagine that to be misrepresented.
On the other hand, and to again get back to the topic, your misrepresentation of my edits on this noticeboard is entirely clear. Refraining from doing so in future will save a great deal of time and, according to your claim above, self-inflicted sadness. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
08:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094741868 by HHH Pedrigree (talk) I'm beginning to get really tired of you and Addicted gatekeeping."
07:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094733672 by Addicted4517 (talk) Look, pack in the WP:OWN. You're just editing to your own ego rather than for the good of the article at this point."
22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094671570 by Czello (talk) THEY DO RECOGNISE IT. THATS THE POINT WE'RE MAKING"
22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094581195 by Czello (talk) For GOD'S sake. He came out on the Pay Per View with the damn belt, they called him the NEVER Openweight Champion, he's holding the belt in the picture. This is just getting ludicrous at this point."
First off, nobody linked me to that discussion on the Impact talk page. And secondly, the "edit war " is only happening because other users are deliberately ignoring sources which verify the edit myself and another user made. When we make an edit stating that a company holds a title and to placate a user with a history of WP:OWN, we provide a picture of the wrestler in the company in question holding the belt in question because the users arguing for whatever reason don't actually watch the product in question and call the edit invalid and then say the picture WHICH PROVES WHAT WE'RE SAYING EXACTLY isn't good enough, they're just editing for ego rather than the good of the article. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time the user has problems. Every time we try to explain rules, he attack the other user, saying we WP:OWN the article (first time I hear about asking for sources is WP:OWN and act as gatekeepers). He has no knowledge about Wikipedia rules and no interest to learn them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three different editors have now informed you that your sourcing isn't good enough. You're also resorting to personal attacks (you've called editors egotistical several times, including in the above comment, and you have accused several editors of WP:OWN). I did inform you I'd start a talk page discussion (here). Regardless, none of what you've said above justifies going over WP:3RR. It's a hard line. — Czello 08:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what concerns me more, the extreme hyperbole from HHHPedrigree or that you're choosing to ignore the behaviour of said editors I've cited using WP:OWN. It does justify it because you, him and Addicted are all ignoring WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not "ignoring rules and refusing to learn them" per the broken English above. I'm citing the lack of being reasonable coming from him and Addicted. I'll concede, Czello that while I don't agree with you either, you are attempting in your own way to be diplomatic. Those two in my opinion are not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about your behavior. [39] You included unsourced information and other users removed. You stated the discussion with WP:OWN accusations. The usual way: You include unsourced information, other user revered because unsourced information can not be here. You accused him of WP:OWN and gatekeeper. Every time other user tries to explain the rules, you ignore him and attack him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not justify it. You are only permitted to break WP:3RR to undo vandalism or remove BLP violations. — Czello 09:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments:
User has been reverted 4 times by 3 users. He includes a picture as a source even if has been explained in edit and talk page that pictures are not valid as reliable sources. Everytime an user explained the rules, he said we are gatekeepers and said we WP:OWN the article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above report, brotocycle. Redundant complaint. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary this is a perfectly valid complaint, and not only that the user has a history of persistently making accusations of WP:OWN in other parts of professional wrestling. I was on the verge of reporting him to ANI for harassment on my talk page, but this complaint will suffice as a perfectly good substitute. His refusal to accept corrections (his comment here is a perfect example of said refusal) has also been constant. He has been blocked previously for harassment. See his block log. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
14:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "←Created page with ' Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
IP range 2601:40:3 has violated 3RR. Disruptive editing, doesn't use the talk page, also evading their ban (previous account User:Weeebatowj indefinitely banned for vandalism). Wani (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 31 hours. The IP editor persists in restoring copyright violations to the draft. The history shows many revision deletions by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
