Page: Sabiha Gökçen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uness232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

217.44.10.171 (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Contentious, poorly sourced (not RS), POV content has been repeatedly added (or added by reverting) by one editor since November, without any attempt to gain consensus or discuss on the article talk page, and despite other editors giving good reasons and cause for concern in edit histories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.10.171 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Uness232 had been blocked less than a month ago by Voorts for edit warring about the Isles of Scilly (diff list). The same type of edit warring that led to the block has now reocurred in the article about Sabiha Gökçen (diff list). I have removed their rollback permission for now, and WP:ONUS applies: Those favoring inclusion of the paragraphs need to find a consensus before restoring them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC) "more editors on talk support these edits than not - which in any case is closer to the status quo"
2. 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC) "because I used the template from one ref as a template for the next and forgot to change it - you are not following BLP, a policy to protect living people from slander - you are doing the opposite"
3. 19:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) "rm what you don't like is POV pushing"
4. 21:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) "I added important counterpoint based on RS and removed nothing - I only moved the video further down to sit next to other TG statements about Butler"
5. 10:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC) "rm anything that contradicts your POV is called POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation#Tulsi Gabbard distanced herself from SIF and Butler and Talk:Science of Identity Foundation#Basic content policies. Str1977 now edit warring, reverting three different editors, to add BLP-related content. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute on this article is about the policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The dispute is about another editor (not Cambial) radically removing anything that does not conform to his particular POV. BLP is relevant because he is basically trying to paint a slanderous picture of a living person. Anything, source to RS, that contradicts that picture he removes.

Cambial, who has no history of being involved in this article, has inserted himself (in a purely destructive fashion) in this discussion - and in reverting the article - out of revenge because he has a conflict with me on a completely different article. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your groundless accusations of bad faith aside, whether you think you are right does not excuse your edit warring. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit more complicated than "WP:BLPRESTORE". The disputed content in this case is context for the rest of the section, and without the context, the neutrality of the section is disputed. Str1977, Hipal, RogerYg, Cambial Yellowing: I think you need an RfC at this point, with a formal closure that can be enforced. I guess I'll start one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Cromwell (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Orpaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has persistently engaged in edit warring on this article, including violating the 3RR and misuse of the minor edits flag. You can see this from the article history and the user's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher, it's been a few days and this seems to have already ended. Unless I'm overlooking something, I think this can be closed for now? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I will keep an eye on this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And feel free to re-report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Nuatali Nelmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Genuine23446 (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 13:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) to 13:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Fixed misleading information"
   2. 13:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Fixed"
2. 12:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Defamatory and in breech on content controls"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Edited out vandalism and defamation"
   2. 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Resignation of Lisa Tierney */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps removing content despite being reverted numerous times and failing to find a consensus on the article's talk page. TLJ7863 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posting from my original post at AIV. Following the edit-warring removals in August of unflattering content by sockmaster Wildhorse13992 and anon sock 202.43.81.128, described at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 210, master once more removed the content without a policy-based rationale on 9 December [13] and 15 December [14]. These edits were reverted, and master Wildhorse13992 ceased editing. New SPA Wildhorse13992 was just created half an hour ago, and has resumed the edit warring and unjustified blanking of unflattering content. Second account has also requested page protection for the article: [15]. Wikishovel (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 181.115.215.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Leprechaun (film)"
2. 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Leprechaun (film)"
3. 18:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Leprechaun (film)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on Ice Cream Man (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP-hopping user who persistently makes disruptive edits to genre film articles. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of two weeks Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pratt & Whitney F135 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 湾岸2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked not to cross post at Talk:Pratt & Whitney F119 here. Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the user clearly has some competence issues, I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be simple, routine arithmetic based on sourced numbers which does not count as original research. They even reproduce some of that math there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Wikipedia I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.

In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against you for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the 3RRNO exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to WP:DISCFAIL, written to adddress this sort of situation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimbus227: You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. 湾岸2024 reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2005 Birmingham tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luffaloaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#The tornado was rated F2, or T4, not “T5-6” or F3 & Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?, two long talk page discussions.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:
I may earn a boomerang block for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See 1764 Woldegk tornado: Revision history) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the Harry Potter article (User talk:Luffaloaf#October 2024. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the 2005 Birmingham tornado article (see article revision history). Another editor EF5 noted back during the December 7 edit war that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their first edit to the article after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.

During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I directly asked if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they replied they were ok with it. As such, I opened an RFC. However, despite being reminded of WP:BRD, twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself ([32][33]), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (I deserve it for this edit summary), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of WP:3RR, edit warring, and WP:BRD, given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Wikipedia are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of not being mature enough to edit Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by EF5 linked above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” [sic]? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Wikipedia regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to Harry Potter edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Wikipedia. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Wikipedia editors. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like that, along with large replies like this one on a good article I think help confirm maybe righting great wrongs. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“A good article” = meet Wikipedia’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Wikipedia lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. Luffaloaf (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

Will note that Luffaloaf has called Wikipedia's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. E_F⁵ 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at WP:ANI. E_F⁵ 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will note that this is insane to bring into a Wikipedia dispute? This has not happened on Wikipedia. Luffaloaf (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Luffaloaf is continuing to edit war with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear WP:CIR issue with a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia’s WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? Luffaloaf (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I see at least 6 reverts each. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @EvergreenFir) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hurricane Clyde I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur."

  Luffaloaf was blocked by Favonian just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. WeatherWriter has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]