Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{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:Alen Hermen reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Declined)[edit]

    Pages:

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

    Previous version reverted to:
    Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5): diff
    Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4): diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    On Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5):

    1. 09:53–10:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    2. 06:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    3. 15:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    4. 16:25–16:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    5. 05:35–05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    6. 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

    On Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4):

    1. 09:59–10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    2. 06:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    3. 15:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    4. 16:18–16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    5. 05:44–06:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    6. 06:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, however there are some discussion on user talk pages: User talk:Alen Hermen#March 2024, User talk:Ravensfire#Stop Removing Ratings From Bigg Boss Malayalam Pages

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

    Comments:

    Hi, I am an uninvolved editor who came across this crystal-clear 3RR violation from this editor on multiple pages. They have been warned about it before as shown in the diff above. The user appears to be edit-warring to constantly restore a "ratings and viewership" on these articles, with either no sources or unreliable sources. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the report. They have self-reverted after I opened a discussion here - Talk:Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5)#Ratings and viewership section - Unreliable additions. I believe they have understood the problems with their contributions now. information Note: to administrator, I don't think a block will be necessary, WP:AGF. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Reverted my edits. Alen Hermen (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed, thanks for that. I'd be happy to withdraw if you have understood the edit warring policy. Also a quick sidenote, calling someone a "robot" like you did here kind of goes against the civility policy, so keep that in mind. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks,But-Is Robot A Bad Thing Alen Hermen (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be seen as a personal attack by some at least. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alen Hermen, depending on how you view it, questioning someone's humanity can be a very severe attack. See the article about dehumanization for example. However, in this case here, "stop being like a robot" is far away from that. It should be avoided and is rather incivil of course; I'd be surprised if you meant it as a compliment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined per apparent resolution above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:180.75.238.55 reported by User:HundenvonPenang (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

    Page: Balik Pulau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 180.75.238.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

    Comments:

    Calling for urgent action on IP address 180.75.238.55 resuming persistent edit-warring behaviour after being blocked due to disruptive behaviour in WP:ANI#Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles, as per Deb's advice. No attempt was made to establish consensus and said IP address appears to have chronic edit-warring tendencies. hundenvonPG (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping for Liz, IP address resuming edit-warring behaviour after block. hundenvonPG (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 1 week for disruption and continued unsubstantiated accusations of racism.-- Ponyobons mots 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HJ72JH reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

    Page: Languages of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: HJ72JH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "Start of the list "Besides the former colonial languages of English, French, Portuguese, Dutch (Afrikaans) and Spanish, the following languages are official at the national level in Africa (non-exhaustive list):""
    2. 00:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "Since the list includes a colonial language"
    3. 00:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "It’s not a bold edit when it says “Besides the former colonial languages of English, French, Portuguese, Dutch (Afrikaans) and Spanish, the following languages are official at the national level in Africa (non-exhaustive list):” and it says “Indo-European languages, while not indigenous to Africa, are spoken in South Africa and Namibia (Afrikaans)" It's keeping in the style of the article"
    4. 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "Afrikaans is quite literally an "Indo-European language, not indigenous to Africa". It's in the article itself"
    5. 22:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) "Afrikaans is a colonial language and the list is for languages other than colonial languages"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Languages of Africa."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 01:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) "/* March 2024 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    1) They refused to respect BRD even after being reminded of it. 2) They continued to edit war while refusing to engage in the discussion that I started. 3) When they finally started communicating, they kept contradicting themselves and after seeing that two editors disagree with them, they removed the content again. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not contradict myself at any point. The list does not include colonial languages and it's supposed to exclude Afrikaans. HJ72JH (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing is for sure, you kept edit warring after blanking your talk page and removing the recent 3R notice. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abrasax123 reported by User:JUMPp1harm (Result: No violation, filer blocked for copyright violation )[edit]

    Page: Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Abrasax123 (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. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [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: [diff]

    Comments:
    This user persists in undoing the improvements I've made, despite the changes being objectively beneficial. Their justifications for reverting edits are lacking in substance.

    • 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. JUMPp1harm is warned for their own edit-warring. A conviction that an edit is "objectively benefical" is not a justification for edit-warring. Stop and discuss on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further note: filer blocked for copyright violation after previous warnings. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rembo01 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

    Page: Indonesian National Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rembo01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Version reverted to 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) by Ulcerative

    Rembo01 is a throw-away account created to edit war on conflicts involving Indonesia (the one being reported is not the only article he/she is trying to impose his/her POV on). He/she also edited as an IP editor as part of this. On Indonesian National Revolution, they are trying, amongst other things, to put "Indonesian victory" into the infobox.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11] 111.94.67.181 13:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. [12] Rembo01 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. [13] Rembo01 03:00 - 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. [14] Rembo01 09:56 - 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5. [15] Rembo01 15:52 - 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    6. [16] Rembo01 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:57 - 16:59, 7 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Indonesian National Revolution#"Military victory"

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

    -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Bonesdonahue reported by User:Derknasnort (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

    Page: {{List of Super Bowl champions}}
    User being reported: Bonesdonahue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    I have reverted this user's personal preference edits to this page, they have been warned about engaging in warring and told to take it to the talk page. It seems at this point they only want to push their preference on the page as they have reverted back their edits 3+ times.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bonesdonahue

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FMSky reported by User:Thesixthstaff (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Killing of Laken Riley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212584403

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212584738
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212606534
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212612072
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212613004

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFMSky&diff=1212615400&oldid=1211833642 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesixthstaff&diff=prev&oldid=1212612807 [diff]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

    Comments:

    So obviously this article is already a really contentious subject right now. I've definitely been editing extensively, mostly to try to combat potential BLP violations, especially per WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think technically I've broken the 3RR rule here, but understand if my conduct could also be considered edit warring. With that in mind, do with me what you will. I've tried to find consensus on the talk page, etc, including adding the substance of FMSky's reversion to a sentence where it reads more naturally, but that got reverted as well. If it seems appropriate, I will put in a request at the pertinent noticeboard for pending changes protection on the page. Please also note that the user reverted my warning on their talk page and counter-warned me. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, you were edit warring too. Secondly, your edits go against the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#WP:BLPCRIME? The only reason this murder is notable is because it was committed by an illegal immigrant, so removing this info (or hiding it with obscure wording) is unhelpful and disruptive -- FMSky (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't sought to remove reference to the suspect being an illegal immigrant - I deliberately included it, actually. If you look at any of my edits or diffs you will see that is the case. In addition, the talk page discussion you cited (which I started, btw) did not reach what I would consider "consensus", and certainly not a consensus strong enough that my movement of a word from one paragraph to the next would be considered in violation. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FMSky:, yes, you did revert four times in a couple of hours, but ... do you consider the issue resolved with what Sixth proposes here? I notice that afterwards you posted, then removed, an edit-war warning, suggesting that's the case. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was fine with that suggestion but at the same time the user removed the initial mention that the suspect entered the US illegally https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212612917 which i dont agree with
    The context for my proposal of adding "illegally" to that sentence was with the understanding that I would remove the clause from the prior paragraph. I could have been clearer, but I stand by the compromise as reasonable. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fine to me. The issue, really, isn't so much that he entered illegally as that when he was apprehended after doing that, he was released without being deported. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EW aside, using the words murder and illegal in WikiVoice without any convictions is disturbing. I don't see this in the sources other than accused of, arrested for, and quotes by Republicans. This is a contentious BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    article doesnt call him an illegal, only that he entered the country illegally, which is supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/congress-laken-riley-immigration-ibarra-georgia-34b06b0829772900eb55c123fe151845 "Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the U.S. illegally" --FMSky (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That source says this in the middle of statements by Republicans blaming Biden for the death, and the article is not specifically about this incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-riley-immigrants-crime-63181cbc7a89fe9fe28b1d0cf84c8b9a Immigration authorities say Mr. Ibarra, a Venezuelan, entered the country illegally in 2022.
    Note that the sentence in the linked article links to another article about the man that only says arrested, not illegal. The only use of the word “murder” in both articles is a quote from Donald Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt add murder(er), discuss that with the user who did --FMSky (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first fives cites and they do not state illegal in their voice, including the cite for that wording in our article. Our policies on BLPs are quite strict. I don't see any problem with using alleged. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240307132814/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

    Leave a Reply