Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive425

Page:

Previous version before reverts [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&oldid=999825640 link]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: diff

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Trump wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CorCorCor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54] Note: this diff is not especially meaningful, as it spans several hundred edits by myriad users. So, probably best to skip it and focus more on the evidence below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]

Comments:

CorCorCor is a

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

I suggest a page or topic ban would be appropriate. Zazpot (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result:
  WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The One I Left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:
Violation of

User:Onetwothreeip why didn't you reach out to me? I added a sentence or two about the National Guard which I believe was important to the article. Someone asked me to self revert which I dont have the capability to do. You are free to remove it, but I would like to discuss why you think it important to remove. This isn't spam, and this isn't unsourced material I added. The One I Left (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:1RR. That’s a bit confusing. I don’t know why there was a report made here, as blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. In other words, blocks are to stop the disruption of articles, not to punish users. There’s no need for a block as the user didn’t know there was a 1RR on that page (to be fair, neither did I and I’m sure a lot of other people don’t know either), so I don’t get why the report was made. D🎊ggy54321 ^{(happy 20 years of Wikipedia!!}

) 12:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: I reached out to you at 07:36, 14 January 2021. I made sure that you had made edits after I left the message before reporting here, to make sure that you had seen the message first. I asked you to self-revert, which everyone has the capability to do. I was not free to remove it myself, as I would be violating 1RR myself since I reverted it once before. I'm more than willing to discuss content, but that has to take place after the content is reverted. I never claimed it was spam or unsourced, I gave the reason in my edit summary when I first reverted it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Whether they unknowingly broke 1RR or not at the time of the edits, they were alerted to it by myself. Self-reverting is always allowed and does not count as a revert for 1RR or 3RR. When anyone makes an edit to the article, the following message is displayed, in larger font and in bold: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. Instead of discussing on the talk page, The One I Left reinstated their edit shortly after it was reverted. Whether or not a block should be in place is something completely for an administrator and I am not asking for any particular outcome. If this is not the place to report this kind of edit warring violation, I would appreciate an administrator directing where it should take place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:  Self-trout, I forgot that self-reverting doesn’t contribute to the various degrees of RRs.

When anyone makes an edit to the article, the following message is displayed, in larger font and in bold: 'If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit' — That’s not true. I made a

invisible comment

, but if I was editing a section, I wouldn’t know that.

I also think they just missed your talk comment. So many users do this on a daily basis (including me). I miss talk page comments all the time, even when the pings go through. It’s up to the editor who left that message to now

assume good faith and think that the user just missed it. And, by the looks of it, they had already made both edits before you left them a message, so there was nothing they could do at that point. If you are not of legal drinking age and you have two glasses of wine before anyone tells you it’s illegal, what is there to be done? You already consumed the alcohol, but it was unknowingly. In the same manner, if The One I Left does not know a page uses 1RR and they revert two times before anyone says "hey this page is under 1RR", what is there to be done? They already reverted twice, but they were both unknowingly. D🎊ggy54321 ^{(happy 20 years of Wikipedia!!}

) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The message appears as an edit notice. The message I sent them also wasn't a ping, it was directly on their talk page. The One I Left still hasn't self-reverted the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Warned I've warned The One I Left for breaching the 24-hour BRD cycle restriction. Just noting (FYI Onetwothreeip) that this article isn't subject to a 1RR but a 24 hour BRD cycle which is similar but different to straight 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, Callanecc. Given that The One I Left hasn't self-reverted the content, am I able to revert it myself again, without them being allowed to restore it again? What is the difference between 1RR and a 24 hour BRD cycle? Is the following part of the article's edit notice wrong, or misleading: Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions? Should violations of a 24 hour BRD cycle continue to be reported here? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Yep, I'm happy for you to revert it to enforce the BRD restriction. Just link to this when you do. 1RR applies to any edit on the article (whether the same content or completely different) whereas the BRD restriction applies only to the same content. For example, the BRD restriction would not have applied to The One I Left if their second edit was about different content but 1RR may have (if both were reverts). See User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ for more detail. I've removed the reference to the 1RR in the edit notice - I think it was a mistaken leftover from when there was a one-revert rule on the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Irreversible Damage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CatCafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81] and [82] (consecutive)
4. [83] this part of a sequence reverted text to the immediately previous version
5. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: current state of discussion

Comments:

Note that this article is covered by the gender-related (Gamergate) discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(I'm involved in this discussion, so this is not to be taken as a comment by an uninvolved admin). Thanks for filing this, you beat me to it. CatCafe appears to be under the (mistaken) impression that the belief that they are properly engaging in the BRD process (they are not) overrules 3RR. It's worth noting they're also becoming antagonistic towards the other editors involved in this conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified of discussion by way of *subst:an3-notice*? Anyway I'm sorry and the antagonism all started when other editors made derogatory and hurtful comments about me, accusing me of mis-gendering - and I shouldn't have to be exposed to this. In fact, I believed I was trying to stop other editors arguing to currently mis-gendering on the page and presume their gender. And since then I tried to used WP:BRD to bring discussion back to talk. Anyhow, I will backoff the page now and let the other's sort this out. And hopefully they will do so and without assuming other people's gender on the talk page inflaming the issue.CatCafe (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This diff 22:45, 14 January 2021‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 12,285 bytes +555‎ →‎3RR 3RR noticeboad: new section shows that CatCafe was in fact notified just after Newmpartial filed the report, per policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with GW, CatCafe's comment is a gross misrepresentation of the talk page discussion. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts you're a bit too involved, as you were one of two people making personal insults of me, further aggravating the issue. That was after the other editor was inflaming sensitivities by taking it upon themselves to 'presume' the current gender of the people in question rather than stick to the sources. That was out of line and both those instances of disrespect become naturally inflammatory. CatCafe (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, respecting people's latest gender self-identification as reported in the source isn't "presuming". Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Newimpartial, you got it the wrong way around and are not following. It was others stating they were 'presuming'. The editor in question inflamed gender sensitivities when they claimed: "So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys" (without quoting a source) and said "Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date". This is

WP:OR as they admitted their own presumptions. It was I and a few others trying to use the sources literally using their term "girls". I'm not the one doing the misgendering here - and should not have that insult put to me. So far on that page, no editor has come up with a source for what the group alternatively wish to be gendered as. And ongoing debate on talk has produced no source to challenge the current sources. If you want this resolved please find sources stating what gender-term the group now are comfortable with, I encourage you to do so. CatCafe (talk

) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well provide cites and place them next to the text you claim. So far you or any other's have had initiative to quote the sources literally proving your claims. That's what we are supposed to do on WP - not WP:OR. CatCafe (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The book reports itself as being about AFAB teens identifying as trans, and how they shouldn't do that. It is not OR to say that a book talking about how too many AFAB teens identify as trans is talking (at least in part) about AFAB teens who identify as trans. That is a matter of simple reading comprehension, and doesn't require citations. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See this is the hub of the dispute, and I think you'll find you need citations on WP, not speculation. Here's a suggestion you should have articulated this on the talk page (not after the fact when reporting me here) specifically referring to the source and text supporting your claim, and get consensus for that, and use a supporting cite. There's a lot of avoiding specifically referring to sources and cites for your argument. CatCafe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Look I've apologised and said I'd back off the article. If these other's like Newimpartial want to speculate the gender of the people with no hard cite, or show an unwillingness to cite supporting sources, then good luck to them. Someone else can deal with any WP:OR they create. CatCafe (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Saying that others need to produce cites isn't an excuse for edit-warring, particularly when most of the removals you reverted were covered by
    WP:OWN behavior, with a dash of Whataboutism here at the 3RRN. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk
    ) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Result: User:CatCafe is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Irreversible Damage without getting a prior consensus in favor of their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kimand299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: User:Kimand299 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in favor of their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: [[User:User:Darkwarriorblake|User:Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:User:Darkwarriorblake|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Darkwarriorblake|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Darkwarriorblake|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Darkwarriorblake|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Darkwarriorblake|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */"

Comments:

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

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

Comments:

• Result: The filer User:Kimand299 has been warned for edit warring per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Turks in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sseevv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A (he reverted to the previous version but then heavily modified the article and engaged in further reversions despite an ongoing discussion multiple times adding as many sources as possible)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Started with him reverting myself (I explained why I edited the article in the talkpage) here[86], this was about the reliability of the 7 million Turks in Germany figure sources that he had originally added here [87], which I proposed should instead be moved to the demographics section only and essentially return the infobox and demographics to its version as of October 14th 2020.
2. I didn't see he had reverted me for a few days, but when I did I found his revert explanation demonstrably false (he accused me of inventing estimates even though I put sources and was trying to bring back the article as it was before) so I restored my edit, which he then reverted again. [88]
3. Right after this edit [89], while not an outright revert, he continued to remove sources previously added by another user [90] under the accusation of sock puppets.
4. Most recently with another user after multiple people brought up his bold editing (not just reverting) while refusing to allow others to alter the infobox and demographics section.[91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92] (too many to post diff' individually)

Comments: This is not a blatant violation of the 3RR I am reporting but rather a string of behavior from his accusations on the talkpage and his edits on the main article, in a nutshell : removing multiple users edits over an extended period of time without consensus and accusing others multiple times of Vandalism and using Sock Puppets. Note the talkpage subject in question - Revising Demographic stats in the infobox - has become quite long and arduous to read. [93] He reverted me twice last month and made accusations of vandalism (and said he was reporting me, though he didnt follow through[94]) because I wanted to move what I regarded as unreliable sources from the infobox to just the demographics section. I decided not to restore my edit a second time and try to discuss on the comments section but he dismisses my sources without explanation other than they differ from his. I asked multiple users to weigh in on this, three of which have expressed opposing opinions to his, he made another accusation of sock puppeting ("Well the majority of you have barely contributed to Wikipedia, yet are suddenly here together with the same aim.") even tough two of the users have contribution histories going back years. He dismisses this anyways. From the talkpage he said "The Germany Embassy report must stay, you haven't made any convincing arguments why it should be removed.", there were multiple arguments made against it but he dismissed them while continuing to only allow his sources to appear and not include the lower ones. Note he has been constantly editing the article since each revert and in between meaning its hard to point out everything he has changed. Another edit he made claimed it was in accordance with the talkpage, but no one agreed to it[95]), he just took one aspect of something Buidhe brought up and applied it to the article, but nothing else he proposed. I asked why has he been editing the contested parts of the articles none-stop since this dispute began but got no response. Finally another user asked him too. He then went on to revert another user who had made changes to infobox himself, then he said he would "refrain from further changes", yes, after he reverted another user[96] to the way he wanted the article he won't do that again, convenient. The point in question here isn't who's argument is "right" about the sources but rather his bullying to prevent anyone from changing the information he deems unilaterally correct, he has demonstrated this attitude on the talkpage and article that only he can edit the infobox even when consensus has thus far been against him but he removes anyone else regardless of the discussion on the talkpage and accuses them having an agenda, sock puppetry, and vandalism while dismissing sources that don't corroborate his own. The fact he continued to do so even when much more experienced editors than me have commented is worrying. Will Tyson for real (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits are not malicious nor have I bullied anyone. Yes, I did ask for a sockpuppet investigate, because there was a sudden interest in the Turks in Germany infobox by users who are not very active on Wikipedia. The investigation found that "User:Will Tyson for real" was also likely to be "User:Charlie Bostoner". Overall, I have tried to express the flaws in some of the sources this editor has pushed for. Although I did make a recent edit, once I saw a message by a user asking not to do so until a compromise was founded, I agreed. In fact, this edit was a sincere attempt to please "User:Will Tyson for real" by placing the German census figure which they have insisted on. I did not realise that my good intentions, which was an active attempt to show my willingness to compromise, would backfire in this cruel way. Sseevv (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware you opened a sockpuppet investigation, since I saw you make other accusations too without reporting. But the way you brought it up on the talkpage was dismissing anyone who disagreed since the statement I put in bold above was also addressed to Buidhe and Tserton. Even before anyone else weighed in on just my second edit you said you were going to "report this"[97]. There was the accusation of Vandalism made because I made a single mistake with one of the sources, rather than correcting this mistake he just reverted it entirely, this includes sources myself and others tried to add and other changes to the infobox without consulting the talkpage. Your statements on the comment section along with your actions on editing the article amounted to you weren't going to allow anyone to change the infobox without your expressed permission. And yes I brought up your constant editing between reverts on the talkpage because you weren't allowing others to edit the infobox multiple times, and you didn't respond on this point until someone else brought it up. This is not how it works, everyone has a say not just one editor. However, "Although I did make a recent edit, once I saw a message by a user asking not to do so until a compromise was founded, I agreed. In fact, this edit was a sincere attempt to please "User:Will Tyson for real" by placing the German census figure which they have insisted on. I did not realise that my good intentions, which was an active attempt to show my willingness to compromise, would backfire in this cruel way." this is not why I reported you and thats not your most recent edit to the article: (even after Tserton commented) someone else changed the infobox and you reverted again.[98] From

WP:EDIT WAR:"An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Note the dispute at that article pertains to more or less the changes introduced to the infobox here.[99] Will Tyson for real (talk

) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Sseevv and User:Will Tyson for real are warned. Each of you is risking a block the next time you revert the article unless you have first obtained consensus for your changes on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Page: Asian pride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. 108.26.53.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 2600:1017:B0D3:E668:544A:3A49:A569:F262 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in this edit note they claim to be the same user[100]
2. LarryMac653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102] 108.26.53.151
2. [103] 108.26.53.151
3. [104] 2600:1017:b0d3:e668:544a:3a49:a569:f262
4. [105] 108.26.53.151
5. [106] LarryMac653
6. [107] LarryMac653

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [108] 108.26.53.151
2. [109] 2600:1017:b0d3:e668:544a:3a49:a569:f262
3. [110] LarryMac653 (soft warning for new users)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

These users are edit warring to add controversial language to Asian pride, despite being reverted multiple times by several different users. Myself[112] and other editors[113] have tried to engage them in discussion at the talk page, but they have refused, claiming their changes have consensus.

• The IP has violated the 3RR and has previously received a three-month block for edit warring at this page (see here).
• The User:LarryMac653 account was created last night and its only edits have been to restore the contentious content added by the IP. Their last edit note says "Please collaborate with us or else this edit will keep coming back."

—