Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 7 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive392) (bot
Line 395: Line 395:
:In short, they're here to complain. I don't know if this noticeboard is actually the right venue, but I can only imagine that they will keep trying to impose their own idiosyncracies as ironclad rules, being abrasive and insulting all the while, until someone stops them. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
:In short, they're here to complain. I don't know if this noticeboard is actually the right venue, but I can only imagine that they will keep trying to impose their own idiosyncracies as ironclad rules, being abrasive and insulting all the while, until someone stops them. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at the history of [[Alraigo incident]], I think {{userlinks|124.150.164.201}} is the same editor. They have the same attitude regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INXS&diff=prev&oldid=905249107 "the voice of the encyclopedia"] (regarding, again, quotations) and what "should be obvious to every editor". Possibly also {{userlinks|203.109.232.234}}, who has already been [[User talk:203.109.232.234|cautioned once]] to read [[WP:CIVIL]]. I ''don't'' think this is sockpuppetry; there doesn't appear to be the intent to make one editor look like many. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at the history of [[Alraigo incident]], I think {{userlinks|124.150.164.201}} is the same editor. They have the same attitude regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INXS&diff=prev&oldid=905249107 "the voice of the encyclopedia"] (regarding, again, quotations) and what "should be obvious to every editor". Possibly also {{userlinks|203.109.232.234}}, who has already been [[User talk:203.109.232.234|cautioned once]] to read [[WP:CIVIL]]. I ''don't'' think this is sockpuppetry; there doesn't appear to be the intent to make one editor look like many. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::''In short, they're here to complain'' - no, I'm here to improve the encyclopaedia. Look at the list you've just posted; you think it's ''me'' who's here to complain? [[Special:Contributions/101.98.126.25|101.98.126.25]] ([[User talk:101.98.126.25|talk]]) 07:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:20, 11 July 2019

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: stale)

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

    Previous version reverted to: User's change

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Initial removal of redirect
    2. 2nd removal of redirect, 1st revert of me
    3. Adding article to redirect
    4. User improperly adding CSD template

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not respond to personal talk page messages.

    Comments: User continously restored a redirect with unreliably sourced information. From talk page observation, user has a history of disruptive behavior and a previous editor noted that they were a potential sock. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to ask an admin to take a look at their UTP, contributions, and articles created (quite a few stubs in June-July). Their area of interest is Indian TV actors. There have also been some image copyvios but Commons took care of it - probably better if they didn't have to deal with it. Perhaps this is a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT or there may be a COI, I don't know. The removal of redirects for Chahat Pandey does tend to magnify the disruption somewhat when coupled with the other errors. Atsme Talk 📧 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that my area of interest is Indian TV actors, but i'm not creating the pages for any financial profit, nor as an agent of any organisation. I am a great of Indian television serials fan and i create the pages of those television actors who do not have an official wiki page. i also created these pages of TV actors because personally i do respect their acting skills, you can cross check with any of the actors of whom i've created the pages whether they know me personally, or any with any organisation they are linked with. Moreover, if i had a financial profit , it would have easy for me get their photographs added to the pages, since i had been uploading images from internet, i was blocked from commons. It was not just a child's play to create these pages, i had researched through various articles online collected information all different sources possible to give the best of the data possible. --Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol[reply]
    In fact i had no intention to cause an edit disruption, since i had already been warned of disruption earlier for [[[Bhumika Gurung]], i had sent a message to Emaus who had last redicted this page before i started editing asking her permission to recreate a new page which can seen in the following link *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emaus&action=edit&section=116, and moreover since i did not want personal editing disruption with other editors, i did send a talk message to Etzedek24 which is given in the link provided *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etzedek24&action=edit&section=9. And as noted by a previous editor i'm not a potential sock of SKS. i had just been editing the mistakes of other editors and providing new valuable information into new wikipedia pages which is the right of any editor on wikipedia.--Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol[reply]

    Stale. But 3RR was not violated (only three reverts listed). Seems to be resolved, anyway. El_C 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Yeah, but I never claimed they did violate 3RR. I was more concerned with the continued removal of redirects. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:41.190.12.74 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Abdulrazaq Atunwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    41.190.12.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC) ""

    There are at least eight more on a slightly different IP as well. Ifnord (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [1]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Fleets reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Fleets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "infobox"
    2. 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "infobox"
    3. 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "rv to last good version"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Russell Crowe. (TW)"
    Comments:

    Clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (this response to my warning should give you an indication). This user does make constructive edits, but I think they're being purely disruptive here, putting in the same edit summary ("infobox") and not explaining their edits, which I think go against the norm (removing caption, including countries in state links, etc.). 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 03:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Was just going back to the version that worked best. Left it alone as not interested in edit warring.Fleets (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected. You're both being ridiculous, making edits and reversions without actual explanations or attempts at communication. I'd be justified in blocking you both, but will refrain from sullying your clean block logs. If you would like to continue this dispute, take the next two weeks to communicate with each other on the talk page. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, it is a clear case of both being short, and have no interest in edit warring. All I wanted was a more up to date image as the first thing seen. Am happy with whatever anyone wants to do with the Rusty's infobox and wouldn't want to rob anyone of the chance to improve the article.Fleets (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, two weeks is probably a bit too long in my opinion, but I appreciate your involvement nevertheless. I don't believe I was edit warring (and had no intention of doing so either), rather that I was reverting edits I thought were genuinely disruptive, but others might see it differently, so I can understand your perspective, and I didn't do enough to explain why I thought the edits were disruptive. Fleets, I appreciate you not wanting to continue the dispute, but if the image (which is only a month newer and, in my opinion, inferior as a lead image) is the only thing you were worried about, why did you continue with the changes to the infobox? 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 06:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2 weeks is long, but not non-negotiable. If you come to an agreement, I will gladly unprotect. If you can't, then the harm caused to the article in the next two weeks will be minimal. It's on you guys. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I would like to change back to the previous version (being the version before the most recent revert listed), and Fleets has said that they're happy with whatever anyone wants to do with the infobox, so Fleets, are we in agreement? 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Netoholic reported by User:Bilorv (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905475833 by Bilorv (talk) absolutely no policy or WP:WikiProject Council procedure being followed in regards to this "closure" Proposal shall remain active while gathering list of participants"
    2. 10:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905457360 by Bilorv (talk) rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure" - WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
    3. 02:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure" - WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
    4. 15:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905198336 by MJL (talk) there is no WikiProject Council process which uses such a "closure"."
    5. 15:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905192059 by MJL (talk) out of process "closure""
    6. 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904854642 by MJL (talk) rvt. the "closed" proposal is in the page history. This is a restarted/reworded proposal. Such WikiProject Council proposals are almost never "closed" even after a very long time, see others"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"
    2. 15:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute
    1. User_talk:MJL#Council_proposals
    Comments:

    3RR is not an entitlement and Netoholic has deliberately gone up to 3RR twice. Six reverts in just over 48 hours against three other editors is edit warring. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilorv and other editors are edit warring to push a "closure" of a WikiProject proposal listed at WP:WikiProject Council. Such proposals are listed to gather interest in WikiProjects, and some are listed for several years while gathering contacts with potential participants. They are generally only archived after the proposed WikiProjects launch, or when a proposer has withdrawn it or gone inactive. There is no procedure for an outside group to "close" such a proposal - even one they dislike. Imagine if instead we were talking about WikiProjects related to rival sports teams, or countries, or political ideologies. It is RIDICULOUS to think some few outside people could come in a "close" such a proposal. This proposal has been listed only about 6 weeks, whereas one can easily see several at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals have been listed for years. This "close" by an WP:INVOLVED non-admin (and subsequent reverts by other INVOLVED participants) is completely against standard procedure on that page. This proposal has been the subject of several occasions of WP:GAMING by this same set of editors, and this is just more of the same. -- Netoholic @ 11:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - it doesn't matter what your opinion of the issue is, or the rights and wrongs, disputes like this should be resolved through dialog with the users, and accepted channels, not by repeatedly undoing multiple users. And performing six reverts in 48 hours, with a 24-hour window in between, while technically not breaching 3RR, is clear edit warring. Netoholic was blocked in April for edit warring too, so I strongly suggest they change the way they react when things don't go their way.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A00:801:406:F86:D091:2B62:D308:4DA5 reported by User:Alex Cohn (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page
    Janis Joplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2A00:801:406:F86:D091:2B62:D308:4DA5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905511909 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
    2. 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905511773 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
    3. 15:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905511258 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
    4. 15:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905510649 by 2A02:C7F:8C89:6200:404A:B6FD:7263:D2EA (talk)"
    5. 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905510525 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
    6. 15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905510109 by 216.208.132.219 (talk)"
    7. 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905509979 by 38.32.8.114 (talk)"
    8. 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905509874 by 2605:E000:8582:4100:9C09:FE58:11EC:39E3 (talk)"
    9. 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905509217 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Janis Joplin. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Well past 3RR now... Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article has been semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Useddenim reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: Warned 24 hours)

    Pages:

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    1. Coatbridge Branch
    2. Whifflet Line
    3. Liverpool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway
    4. Great Eastern Main line RDT


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Not going to list all the Diffs as there's too many to list. Here they are just for Template:Coatbridge Branch (NBR):

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (not involved and no such resolution was sought by either party on any article's talk page)

    Comments:

    User is going around reverting changes by the IP, without any explanation whatsoever nor with any attempt to reach out to the IP. Only comment was on user's talkpage. Considering how long he has been a member of Wikipedia, he should know better (which is why I'm reporting him and not the IP). Also abusing rollback rights. I am completely uninvolved, I don't even live in and have never been to the United Kingdom. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This was plain and simple WP:RVV. These IP editors were—incorrectly—inserting anachronistic motorways into historical railways. Then, without bothering to examine any of the details, Rockstone35 decided to escalate this to WP:ANIANEW just two minutes after posting a talk-page warning. Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This still isn't WP:ANI, this is WP:ANEW; like I said earlier... Regardless, I'm posting this here to get more eyes to look at it. Don't take it personally. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help it if someone doesn't do their homework first, but merely engages in drive-by editing. Useddenim (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but edits that are mistaken are still not vandalism. Vandalism is intentional and malicious, which these edits do not appear to be. For example, it's most likely the case that whoever edited Template:Liverpool_and_Manchester_Railway was not attempting to be a vandal, but misunderstood the point of the template. You should WP:AGF. And it's still arguable that noting that the motorway intersects where the railway used to be is worthwhile. Even if you are in the right that these templates shouldn't have these railway and motorways in them, you should at the very least explain your changes by providing edit summaries or reaching out to the alleged vandal. Otherwise to me, and anyone else, it looks like you're just edit warring. But let's allow one of the regulars on this page to take a look and decide what's best. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockstone35: If both the perpetrator and the reverter know that it's vandalism, them it should be clear-cut. Furthermore, I don't think that this is merely random "adding a correction that should be there", as these IPs chose the correct icon (out of over 7,000), then employed rather obtuse syntax to add it to the diagrams (which use two, significantly different, markups). In fact, there may ever be case for WP:SPI (except that I don't recognize this editing pattern). Useddenim (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm starting to understand what happened a bit more. Part of the issue is that, because the IPs did chose the correct icon and added it to the diagrams, it looked as if the IPs knew what they were doing. I apologize for escalating this to here without contacting you first. I do think in the future reverts for things that could be misconstrued as not being vandalism should have some type of summary, although I'm guilty of not doing that either (and if you hit "rollback", it won't give you one). Rockstonetalk to me! 21:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a deficiency with WP:ROLLBACK; there should be a checkbox for RVV, and and optional edit summary field. (And the IPs also seemed quite conversant with which edit summaries to use…) Useddenim (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Useddenim, User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/ajaxrollsum.js offers another rollback link with a summary field ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Bazza 7, ‎Dr Greg. Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours after Useddemin ignored the warning and continued reverting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:כורכום (Result: Boomerang)

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

    Previous version reverted to: 905529145

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 905529145
    2. 905528748
    3. 905528748


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 905565066

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7], [8]

    Comments:

    Despite talk page discussion addressing their concern that the edit misrepresents sources, Snooganssnoogans repeated their claim that the references are misrepresented. After the page was locked for edit-warring for three days, discussion continued with a third opinion request. The concerns of all participants were addressed. Snooganssnoogans did not wish to participate in the discussion and then claimed there's no consensus. I explained to them at least three times that they appear to be violating WP:OWN by repeatedly reverting the changes with an invalid revert reason. כורכום (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Snooganssnoogans has not violated 3RR but you have violated WP:BRD by trying to add content without consensus in a dispute. BRD is not BRRRRRRRRRRRRD. No action should be taken here other than maybe protecting the page fully and starting an RfC on the talk. Toa Nidhiki05 00:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The report is not about 3RR, it's about edit-warring. One person's no-reason reverts do not merit an RfC, especially since their concerns have been addressed and a third opinion has joined the discussion to address any further concerns and achieve consensus. Note that consensus doesn't mean that Snooganssnoogans has to sign off on all the changes. כורכום (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a single-purpose account whose only edits to English Wikpedia is to insert text into the lede of Congestion pricing to give readers the false impression that congestion pricing does not reduce congestion (an extraordinary claim that is piss-poorly substantiated). I have given my reasons for opposing the text on the article's talk page: (1) The text does not accurately summarize the findings of the cited sources (the text misleadingly suggests that congestion pricing does not reduce congestion), (2) The text does not accurately reflect existing literature about congestion pricing, thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and (3) The text does not accurately summarize the body of the article. There is no consensus for the inclusion of this content in the lede. In fact, I oppose it, and I think A.D.Hope opposes it (although his comments were not entirely clear). The only clear advocate for the inclusion of this content is the single-purpose account above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All the claims added are directly present in the sources provided. You know this. We've discussed this. Nothing is misrepresented. כורכום (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @כורכום:what kind of notification is this here going to an edit in April 2019 and adding two equal signs ~ I don't think that is proper notification ~ maybe @Snooganssnoogans: might or might not see it ~~ sounds like something behind the back ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff goes to a 10 July 2019 edit? And Snooganssnoogans is already participating in this discussion after receiving proper notification? Nothing is "behind the back"... כורכום (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    doesn't matter ~ proper notification is one similar to the one you copy edited today ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're confused... that notification was posted by me today. כורכום (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad I was confused ~ when I followed the wiki link in the history, it went to another editors edit ~ I apologize ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @כורכום: I see what you did ~ when you made it a sub section to "Congestion pricing sources" ~ the section from my watch page goes to here wiki did not see the subsection first ~ once again I am sorry ~ hope you two iron it out ~mitch~ (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporter has been indeffed as a sock of BrightR (talk · contribs). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Britishfinance, you may find this of interest. Again, my time is being eaten up by a sockpuppet. And for the cherry on top, the sockpuppet tried to get me sanctioned for not allowing the the editor to force trash into a Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cosmic_Sans reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: Declined)

    Page: William Barr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cosmic_Sans (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. [9]
    2. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [11] I instructed the user to self-revert after violating 1RR but the user refuses to do so.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [12]

    Comments:

    • CS violated 1RR on the Barr page to force extremely misleading content into the article (a WP:BLP violation). After being instructed that the article was covered by 1RR and being told that he should self-revert, the user refused to comply. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, hello. I'm the user that was reported. My revert does not constitute a violation of the applicable 1RR rule. The current sanction is as follows: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." I only made one revert. Snoogans linked to the same revert twice. I don't think this complaint was brought in good faith. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I only made one revert. Snoogans linked to the same revert twice." This is a straight-up lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be very specific, you linked to the revert in the first link, but the second link is an edit I made that was not a revert. For those who are reading: I added sourced material to the article. Snoogans removed it summarily without discussion. I reverted it back. The first link that Snoog provided is the revert. The second link is the original material I added to the article. There is only one revert. Anyone who clicks on those links can see what I mean. I think you're not acting in good faith here, Snoog. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) (EDIT: I'm sorry, I had that flipped. The second link is the revert, not the other way around.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also important context here that this user has been informed why this content is extremely misleading and deceptive,[13] yet still, the user refuses to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Snoog, I only made one revert, and in that revert I asked you take the discussion to the talk page. ANI/Edit Warring is not an additional forum to engage in a content dispute. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In consideration of the ongoing talk page discussion, and in a show of good faith, I removed the content. However, I still maintain that I only enacted one revert and that this complaint to ANI/Edit Warring was completely inappropriate. Cosmic Sans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor self-reverted after an administrator instructed him to do so.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snoog, nobody agrees with you that this was a 1RR violation. I've noticed that you've stopped discussing this matter on the talk page. I'm not saying that you must do so now, but that if your intention is to object to the edit and then not participate in discussion, then eventually I will deem your objection abandoned and reinstate the material if nobody else objects. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation: "I will continue to edit-war this content into the article, even if editors have objected to it and in the absence of a consensus". The administrator EdJohnston explicitly instructed CS that this is a violation of the restrictions on the Barr page.[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snoog, you seem far more interested in litigating this content dispute on ANI/Edit Warring than you are in discussing it on the talk page of the article. I'm saying that if you have a valid objection to this material, I'd like to hash it out with you. The fact remains that this was not a 1RR violation. EdJohnston said it himself. Nevertheless, you have failed to withdraw your complaint. That leads me to believe that this is not a complaint that was made in good faith. However, I am willing to continue to discuss this with you on the talk page. So if you feel like giving up this frivolous 1RR complaint and instead talking about the content, I would be happy to do that. You know where to find me. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined - user has self-reverted, and technically no violation occurred, as they only did one revert. Please continue to discuss this at the talk page, but for now no action is needed here. Snoog is encouraged to assume better faith next time and not escalate here when dialogue is ongoing.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Britishfinance, here's another instructive case that illustrates the concerns that you expressed amid the CIS sock saga. From now I'll stop coming to the edit-warring noticeboard: the last few days (the first times I've brought cases here in forever) have shown that there's just no point. The editor has added grotesquely misleading rubbish to a BLP, forced it back into the article despite reverts and objections, and has literally stated on this very board that he intends to edit-war the deceptive content into the article in the absence of consensus, yet I'm the one chastised for bringing the case to the noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snooganssnoogans: this isn't the department of pre-crime. If no breach had actually yet occurred, and dialogue was ongoing, then bringing it here was premature. Reporting things here is a last resort, not an alternative to talking over the issues and building consensus on the talk page. I'll not apologise for reminding you of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it is possible that Snooganssnoogans could have worked harder on consensus before coming here, I want to point out to User:Cosmic Sans that he is expected to follow the rules stated in {{American politics AE}} if he finds himself getting into disputes on articles which carry that restriction. It is *not* a simple 1RR rule. Though Cosmic Sans only made one revert, his single revert *did* violate the 'consensus required' provision. The restriction was applied to the William Barr article on 2 May by User:El C. So Cosmic's reference to this as a 'frivolous 1RR complaint' and his suggestion of bad faith is misguided. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm objectively correct in stating that this was not a 1RR violation. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I should further note that when the May 2 policy was pointed out, I self-reverted. I don't understand why this issue continues to be discussed. (Or, more accurately, why this issue seems to be discussed anywhere but the talk page for the article.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cosmic Sans, if you would stop referring to this as a bad faith complaint, maybe the discussion would stop. This was a sincerely made, though possibly premature complaint of edit warring on a high profile article. Caution is advised for all parties. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you understand my objection here. When I said that I had only made one revert, Snoog claimed I was lying. Anyone can see that I only made one revert. To date, Snoog has not retracted his statement or admitted that he was wrong. When you pointed out the May 2 policy, I immediately complied and self-reverted. Snoog has made no such show of good faith on his end, such as rescinding his claim that I'm a liar. I'm going to respectfully bow out of this discussion for now, but surely you can see where I'm coming from on this. Nobody likes being called a liar when they are actually saying something that is true. I sincerely hope that Snoog will participate in discussions on the talk page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:108.26.225.219 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Dividend tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    108.26.225.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid a series of reverts. Do not remove "arguments against" you disagree with."
    2. 13:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905651724 by MrOllie (talk)"
    3. 13:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905650357 by Arjayay (talk)"
    4. 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 905614327 by Pencil Pusher (talk)"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC) to 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
      1. 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 904892224 by Pencil Pusher (talk)"
      2. 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) ""Citation needed" removed for a self-evident statement."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • Declined The "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" section is blank. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fargo44 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fargo44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:35,09/07
    2. 03:28
    3. 12:17
    4. 13:11
    5. 13:42
    6. 14:34
    7. 19:33
    8. 20:42
    9. 21:29

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019#Cameron_Boyce

    Comments:

    • Nine reverts in the last 24 hours. I would block myself but have reverted them twice, along with four other editors. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:P0G41oxepU reported by User:Ahrtoodeetoo (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours)

    Page: Bill Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: P0G41oxepU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, clear BLP vio reverted by 3 different editors (myself as well as Beach drifter and My very best wishes.

    Comments:

    The article is also within scope for AP2 and BLP DS and P0G41oxepU has received the appropriate alerts. R2 (bleep) 21:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Comments:The editor is disruptively edit warring, ignoring the discussion, without any consensus, in an attempt to push change of the title (ignoring how are the articles titled), meaning of the term "White Croats", scope, and structure of the article which it had from the beginning. The editor is refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks because of which was also reported at noticeboard/incidents.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • The two editors are also bickering at WP:ANI. Neither editor has violated 3RR at the article, although both have been edit-warring equally. I'm not taking action, but if I were to do so, I'd block them both.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I emphasize, the editor was reported because of edit warring, not 3RR. While I reverted to a WP:SILENCE revision (+bold intermediate solution with which were included references introduced by Nicoljaus), Nicoljaus was edit warring against the talk page discussion, with no consensus, in an attempt to change the things stated above, against moderator's advice ([30]). If we both get blocked, then the article cannot be kept in a revision for which there's no consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The first two edits is a partial return to the consensus version. Unlike Miki, who generally uses only full reverts, I keep his useful edits: Miki's edit, my revert--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:101.98.126.25 reported by User:Bensci54 (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    101.98.126.25 (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 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) to 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      1. 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "not intuitive or useful"
      2. 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC) "also not intuitive. in fact, obviously absurd. where does a reader expect to go when clicking on "reflection among physicists"? There is no clear expectation, and ending up slightly further down the same page is not in any way useful."
    2. 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) "It does not aid navigation in any possible sense. Everybody (except possibly you) knows that the lead is a summary of the article, and more information about every part of the lead will be found below"

    I didn't look at the IP's contribution history in any detail until now, but they're indulging in the same kind of behavior at more pages than just Bogdanov affair. They also removed a note I left cautioning them about their conduct (I made it as polite as possible). XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A sampling of their edit summaries:
      1. "removed useless links and bullshit" — vulgar, also misleading (interlanguage links are explicitly noted as useful in the documentation)
      2. "The mind boggles that you don't grasp this" — insulting, confrontational
      3. "don't put useless rubbish back unchanged" — confrontational (and the "useless rubbish" was a list of titles that, at worst, needed a few words of lead-in)
      4. "lifting an exact sequence of words from a non-free source, punctuation and all, violates all the fundamental standards of this encyclopaedia" — misleading (checking against the source shows a close paraphrase, perhaps too close for best practice, but not "punctuation and all", and for all their complaining, their edit just changed the sentence from one close paraphrase to another)
      5. "someone clearly didn't understand paragraphs" — confrontational
      6. "text cannot be copied and pasted and presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia" — misleading (the text in question was safely within quotation marks, and after the edit, the text "a firm dry crust and a softer center" is reproduced verbatim from the source, apart from Americanizing the spelling, thereby making it more plagiaristic than it was before)
      7. "the commons exists for arbitrary collections of images" — confrontational (and seemingly opposed to the idea of image galleries entirely)
    In short, they're here to complain. I don't know if this noticeboard is actually the right venue, but I can only imagine that they will keep trying to impose their own idiosyncracies as ironclad rules, being abrasive and insulting all the while, until someone stops them. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the history of Alraigo incident, I think 124.150.164.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor. They have the same attitude regarding "the voice of the encyclopedia" (regarding, again, quotations) and what "should be obvious to every editor". Possibly also 203.109.232.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has already been cautioned once to read WP:CIVIL. I don't think this is sockpuppetry; there doesn't appear to be the intent to make one editor look like many. XOR'easter (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, they're here to complain - no, I'm here to improve the encyclopaedia. Look at the list you've just posted; you think it's me who's here to complain? 101.98.126.25 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=905759908"