Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.


User:Harshrathod50 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
October (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Harshrathod50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846514997 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss."
  2. 06:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Harshrathod50"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. As laid out in the diff(s) provided below, he is well-aware about our policies regarding edit-warring.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Personnel */ Replying to comment by Harshrathod50 (reply-link)"
Comments by OP:
  • Firstly, there is no breach of 3RR but as we all know, that's not an entitlement.
    • The behavior of Harsh as visible at this thread where two editors (including me) had opposed his edit(s) is fairly indicative of his general approach to dispute resolution:--a hostile attitude towards opposing editors and abuse of privileges which was documented here.
  • This is a long-standing-pattern of hostile behavior coupled with complete social incompetency manifesting in issues of ownership and edit-warring.Long-term evidence of edit warring and hostile editing behaviour(s), without breaching the bright-line, may be located at
      • This t/p thread and the concerned article-t/p thread over here, where one of the co-participants had to request him to not ping him to spare his diatribes.
      • Further battleground behavior may be located over this thread.
      • This t/p thread is another example of his edit-warring.
      • More nonsensically hostile behavior, found over the course of these three successive thread(s) clearly points out the extent(s) one has to go, to have a minimal chance of a reasonable discussion with this user.
      • Same behavior is again laid out at this t/p thread.
      • Very recently, same hostile-behavior was exhibited at Hayman's t/p wherein the level of outright personal attacks was shockingly stunning and no doubt, he was duly shown the door.
      • Further recent evidence is at this t/p thread with such levels of hostility, that the discussion had to be shut down.
  • To summarize, this's an editor, using his vitriolic writings and the revert button, in a lethal combination to force out other people from indulging in any constructive discussion(s) and with the ultimate aim of winning content disputes.
    • Thus, it's high time that he's put under some kind of 1RR/0RR restriction to prevent the loss of time and editorial resources, expended, to deal with his antics.
  • And, I can easily dig out more diff(s), shall the need arise. WBGconverse 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal by parties
  • Mr. Winged Blades of Godric, don't you think you too do the same thing? Talk about policies being violated not about me. Also I have asked an admin to revoke my Rollback rights, since you are wary about it. I hope this will calm you down. Please, provide a valid reason for your reverts on October (soundtrack). One thing that bothers me so much that you remove anything implicitly calling it "trivia" even if the text is well cited and related to the subject. Don't even bother discussion. I too want to work constructively but not in the manner that you do. Also, whenever I find myself guilty, I apologise, like here. All you did above here is create a false impression about me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well Harsh Rathod, the following comprise the lines that you wrote in your "apology": "Okay, I am defeated, sorry for wasting everyone's time [....] Accessibility goes to hell, who cares? At least other country film articles aren't inflicted with this problem." This is the edit summary of your second-last edit to the October article: "Don't use horseshit terms in your edit summaries. Come to talk page and discuss." This is when WBG is/was already on the talk page discussing stuff with you. You need to write here clearly that you're going to back off from your battleground mentality. If you don't, this thread is going to close with you getting blocked for some time till you stop being disruptive. Lourdes 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wot Lourdes sez.I'm willing to quasi-withdraw this thread, iff you pledge to
  • completely withdraw from such battleground-behaviour,
  • abide by wiki-etiquette whilst partaking in discussions with fellow editors over anywhere
  • (preferably) voluntarily agree to 1RR restriction
  • in your own writing.
  • Also, this goes without saying, that, any further pattern of mis-adventure(s) will result in me seeking an indefinite block at ANI.WBGconverse 10:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If you will block me indefinitely then how will I able to contribute in future when I am unblocked? I had contributed in many things here. I don't deserve this fate. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My seeking of an indefinite block was a conditional reply and I, (taking cue from Lourdes) have charted a way out of it.The exact length of the block will be either determined by the patrolling administrator or by the community, shall an ANI thread materialize out of this context.WBGconverse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lourdes: Actually, I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years. I have doubts. Will I be blocked on all other Wikimedia sister projects too? I was working on a template, will I be able to submit it here even after being blocked? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't need to change at all doesn't instill any confidence.
  • Whilst, this might be treated as a self-requested block, I will advice against it, given that they can be requested to be overturned anytime and there have been examples of people utilizing this as a backdoor method to ward off imminent sanctions, only to quietly return after a few days.
  • Nope.It won't affect your works/activities at any sister project.WBGconverse 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was saying that what I did on October soundtrack album page is right according to me being inspired by other pages here. And I am not violating any policy or statement. What can I do if others find it wrong? Even they are unclear about it. No, I'll not come back untill the time span of the block is finished. I am committed. I have a doubt. What is the criteria for deciding time span of the block? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Harsh Rathod, it is childish to say "I think I wasn't battling at all, but seeking answers. I don't need to change at all. It is okay, you can block me for 4 years.". No one is blocking you as of now. Not unless you continue your tirade against other editors and your disruptive reverts. There are multiple editors telling you that your communication style is akin to battleground behaviour and that your reverts are disruptive – therefore, as WBG says, I would also strongly suggest that you follow of your own volition and for your own benefit, the following two points:
  1. Stop using tendentious words in your communication and stick to ETIQUETTE in your communication.
  2. Do not attempt more than one (or two at the maximum) reverts on any article within a period of 24 hours, except in exceptional circumstances.
Do you agree to the above? Lourdes 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, what I did is justifiable and there is nothing wrong from my side. I'm not against any editor but their sudden decision of making controversial changes without discussing. Just because some editor is a "new pages reviever" does not give them the right to call any source unreliable without adequate explanation. I too discuss and have lost many arguments straight in a row. But this time, without proper discussion, I was reported directly. What exactly is my fault? I would rather accept this block and spend my time in exile. I gave up my rollback rights and will never ever ask for it again after reading "under the cloud" page. Everything is going one sided, since Winged Blades of Godric is already stablished here, isn't it natural that he is always correct! Always!!! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my. I think you're refusing to get the message! If you believe that you're perfectly right in addressing other editors' contributions as "horseshit" and reverting them unilaterally despite being warned multiple times of being disruptive, then I have nothing more to add but recommend that you be blocked to prevent your battleground attitude in disrupting the project. Lourdes 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What was the meaning of the term "cowboy" in one of Winged Blades of Godric's edit summaries to October soundtrack page? Was that a good behaviour? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WBG wrote "No cowboy editing" and not "cowboy". Anyway, I'm done with this thread as it's clear you will continue disrupting the project without getting the message. Thanks, Lourdes 10:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay now, block me, it is clear that your decision is biased. No arguments, I accept. Please don't make it lesser than what I said. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────-@NeilN:--As a fairly active administrator on this board, any opinions about this report? Or some misc. opinions?WBGconverse 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC) @Harshrathod50: Do you still maintain your communication style is perfectly acceptable and will accept a block if others think the style has significant issues? --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually it took some time, but now I accept that my language has serious issues. I have been accused of having battleground mentality so many times. I need some spiritual reform. Yes, I will accept the block as per you say. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: This started with a dispute over material added by Harshrathod50 to October (soundtrack) that others regarded as WP:Trivia. Harshrathod50's changes suggest a lack of competence or an inability to understand others' objections. His reasoning in Talk:October (soundtrack)#Personnel is mysterious and hard to follow. If anyone thinks a block should follow, how would you word it? EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
(watching) Perhaps a "self-block" for a short period; a time-out might allow H. to re-evaluate his approach / read and absorb policy while avoiding a permenant black mark? If, of course, others think that's not too lenient. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Harshrathod50 may not be coming back soon to this discussion. If he has nothing more to say, I'm prepared to close this with a one-week block. If he requests unblock, it might be granted if he can show he understands the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Today I will amend that page, so wait. Our times don't match. When I sleep, you people are wake. We are on opposite sides of earth. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: User:Harshrathod50 has conceded at least one of the points in dispute by removing the Personnel section from October (soundtrack) which others regarded as trivia, with explanation at Talk:October (soundtrack). Is this concession enough to allow the edit warring complaint to be closed? The overall problem was: Harshrathod50 created the article on October (soundtrack) on 7 June and resisted others' comments that there was no need for such an article. They believed that October (2018 film) was sufficient. He kept removing templates from his newly-created article and kept making what some regarded as bogus arguments. A typical reply from Harshrathod50 was "Please try to have policy based arguments and list the policies which are being violated. Your concerns don't matter and they won't decrease down this albums notability (don't take this as an insult, it is just a bitter truth)". The whole story can be read at Talk:October (soundtrack)#Notability concerns. Other nastiness happened at this user talk link. A common element seems to be Harshrathod50 lecturing others about following policy while not seeming to have a good grasp of it himself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you've not viewed the other diff(s), which demonstrate a long-term pattern of edit-warring and non-facilitation of t/p discourses.Lourdes's way is the sole way out.WBGconverse 17:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, the above proposal by User:Lourdes was: "You need to write here clearly that you're going to back off from your battleground mentality. If you don't, this thread is going to close with you getting blocked for some time till you stop being disruptive." EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm pleased at Harsh's positive reversal in assessing his issues. For good faith, he might wish to add a self-imposed 2RR restriction for the next three months (I'm not sticky about it anyway). This thread can be closed without blocking Harsh; we can always circle back in case this continues. I know this might be a waste of time, but the dude is trying to contribute productively now. And has done some earlier. Lourdes 17:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. I missed one of Harsh's statements, in-between.I'm fine if this is closed as no action with a reminder that further renewal of such behavior,in any form or manner will lead to a trip to blockland.... WBGconverse 00:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Closed with no action, due to comments by the submitter and others. But if User:Harshrathod50 ignores the advice given by editors here (and by the other commenters at Talk:October (soundtrack)#Notability concerns) they will probably get renewed attention from admins. In particular, lecturing others about the requirements of policy when your views are in an extreme minority will probably bring you negative attention. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you said the most right thing. This is what I'm facing. I have no support even though my claims are correct. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh god. Get me out of here. Lourdes 16:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean I will follow all the policies of WP and respect all the fellow editors and get over my attitude in writing. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I like that perspective. And appreciate the effort you're taking. You're a productive editor and I think we should just leave this episode behind and move on. I think if you apply one thumb-rule from hereon, you should be pretty ok – talk to other editors on Wikipedia as if they were your close friends, even while disagreeing with them; you won't believe how that changes the way we communicate. Look forward to interacting with you productively in the future. Warmly, Lourdes 05:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: blocked 48h)[edit]

Page: Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5], [6]

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

Comments:
It is hard to judge just what else he may have done as he has made a vast number of edits over a 24 hour period. He has been warned by multiple users and has only just come of an edit war ban [8]. In addition he appears to pretty much be a Single purpose account.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of this is true if you are accusing me of being a "singlepurpose account", I have edited consistently across this entire wiki, on this entire broad topic if you are accusing me of being "single-purpose". EkoGraf reverted my entire edit instead of just changing back headings and a few subheadings, which I found unjustified given I had re-organized alot of scatteredness in that section. Since he requested I revert the edits whole, I did revert some titles sections but kept some where I felt it was appropriate. I reverted the titles, but kept the structural changes. KarlSmith667 deeted my points I made when I qualified them and substantiated what the link by RUmmel et al., is referring to, without explaining why. Given that this topic in general in which myself and KarlSmith667 was editing is a very tricky, controversial one given the nature, careful wording I can understand had to be used in many ways.
I don't see how you can claim I was editwarring you Slatersteven given that I moved an article link from main to see also, which didn't contradict any edits. A bicyclette (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked 48h. This is not ambiguous. A bicyclette was just blocked for the exact same thing. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ицик Блиядниер Говно reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Already indef blocked)[edit]

Page
Rolling release (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ицик Блиядниер Говно (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847194577 by FlightTime (talk)"
  2. 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Replaced content with 'СОСИТЕ БЛЯДЬ ПИСОСС. Буду резать животы. Oshwah хуесос блядь. Выжму с Физруком сопли с носа.'"
  3. 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "СОСИ ХУЙ КРЫСА"
  4. 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "GO AWAY VANDALISM BE REVERTED"
  5. 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "СОСИ ХУЙ ЖИРНЫЙ ИЦИК"
  6. 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847194357 by FlightTime (talk)"
  7. 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  8. 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847194224 by FlightTime (talk)"
  9. 15:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847053143 by Aspening (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Ongoing edit warring. Hhkohh (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


It is clear form their talk page activity and blatant vandalism they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I think a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And a range block looking at this [9].Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Number 57 17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:8B0D:2100:A173:C79A:A15:A2B4 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group F table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A00:23C5:8B0D:2100:A173:C79A:A15:A2B4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847207927 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
  2. 17:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847207829 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
  3. 17:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847207299 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
  4. 17:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847207203 by Hddty. (talk)"
  5. 17:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847206996 by 88.207.60.238 (talk)"
  6. 17:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847206709 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
  7. 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847206289 by Hddty. (talk)"
  8. 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847206102 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
  9. 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847205802 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
  10. 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

repeatly add unsourced context and ongoing edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:109.144.219.218 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group G table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.144.219.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847209510 by De wafelenbak (talk)"
  2. 17:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847209411 by BangJan1999 (talk)"
  3. 17:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847209334 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
  4. 17:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847209112 by Editor D.S (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Number 57 17:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:49.148.250.143 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Block, Semi)[edit]

Page
An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
49.148.250.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "how is this vandalism when it is correct"
  5. 02:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 02:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  7. 02:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  8. 02:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "You're stupid Ian this is confirmed"
  9. 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  10. 02:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  11. 02:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"
  2. 02:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"
  3. 02:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on An American Tail: Fievel Goes West. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Result: IP blocked 31 hours and page semiprotected two days by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We may need to keep an eye on this article. It has been the target of some fairly persistent disruptive editing using multiple IPs. My gut says they will be back when the protection expires. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Ad Orientem: Thanks guys. There's an ANI discussion about this too.IanDBeacon (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Pollycarrot reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Already indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Page
Dwile flonking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pollycarrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ correction of facts"
  2. 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ correction of factual errors"
  3. 12:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "factual errors corrected"
  4. 12:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "factual errors corrected"
  5. 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "factual errors corrected"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) to 11:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    1. 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "factual errors corrected"
    2. 11:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "additional material"
    3. 11:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "add source"
  7. 08:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ correction of facts"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:MNS-katib reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Sindh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MNS-katib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

Hi, ‎MNS-katib is edit-warring in order to add "Pakistan" to the name of the Pakistani region of "Sindh". The fact that this region belongs to Pakistan is not disputed and stated many times in the article, therefore, there is no need to add another "Pakistan" next to "Sindh" in the infobox (also, the name of the region is "Sindh", not "Sindh, Pakistan"). More, the reported user don't fill any edit summary and refuses to provide any explanation for his edit on the talk page. Maybe an admin should take a look at this, thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, thanks for the time you spent reviewing this case. Please note that the name of the province is "Sindh", not "Sindh, Pakistan" as written by user:MNS-katib in the article. I cannot correct this without a 3RR breach, therefore someone else should fix it. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WeldermanFl85 reported by User:Jorm (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 3 Percenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WeldermanFl85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22] [23]. User does not respond to anything.

Comments:
User isn't slowing down for anything; this article should be semi'd. --Jorm (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Power G (original) reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Rumours (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Power G (original) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC) to 19:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    1. 19:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Dont change this anymore!!!"
    2. 19:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Please dont change this anymore.This is the correct genre"
  3. 19:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Fixed the genre"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Rumours (album). (TW)"
  2. 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rumours (album). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Genre change */ new section"
  2. 20:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Genre change */"
Comments:

User contributions show that they have made mass changes (most of which have been reverted by other editors) to the genre of other Fleetwood Mac related articles. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Examples of other unsources genre changes:
Most of these changes have been reverted - all are unsourced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Μαρκος Δ reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Turkish presidential election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Μαρκος Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:22, 24 June 2018 Removes original results table

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:18, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
  2. 21:22, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
  3. 21:29, 24 June 2018 (removes again)
  4. 21:56, 24 June 2018 (removes again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Was asked to respect BRD in message on talk page at 21:20, but continued to revert. Number 57 21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion started at 21:31. Fourth revert came after this point.

Comments:
Although I unequivocally admit to having broken the three-revert rule, it must be pointed out that I explicitly asked the user above to discuss his changes with me on the talk page, as opposed to reverting to his preferred version. I made several attempts to reason with him/her, and asked the user to settle the discussion before making more changes, but they made rapid, blanket edits and reverted my contributions across multiple articles, which explains my losing count of where, and how many, reverts I was making on any one article. I can assure you that no disruption was intended, and as can be documented, the user above insisted on making his changes even as I pleaded with him to hold it off until a consensus was reached. Even if the rules are on their side in this case, it cannot be ignored that the above user's behavior has been extremely unconstructive. Had the reporting user listened to my first plea, to which I linked above, an edit war would have been avoided altogether. Their intransigent editing and subsequent quick reporting of me frankly makes it seem like they are attempting to root out the opposition to their changes rather than having to take part in any discussion, which was all I ever asked for. I, for one, can promise to refrain from edit warring on both this, and any, article in the future. Μαρκος Δ 21:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:Μαρκος Δ is warned they may be blocked if they revert again on Turkish presidential election, 2018 without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. None of the claims offered above provide a valid reason to violate WP:3RR. Negotiation may be difficult but it is required, when editors disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Bonad bed reported by User:Actor juniour (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Attakathi Dinesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bonad bed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [diff]

I found some more socks of this user:Bonad bed from sock puppet investigation page of user:Bonadae

Click to view
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bonadeaphonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

user:Bonadeaphune (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadea2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphane (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphome (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadea (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphone1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphone2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadea1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadea2 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphane (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphome (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))

user:Bonadeaphone1 (talk+ • tag • contribs • logs • filter log • block log • CA • checkuser (log))


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

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

Comments:

(Actor juniour (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC))

User:Nergaal reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Template:FIFA World Cup group table sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk): Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H table. I am editing from the future in 2018. (TW)"
  2. 09:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk): Pointless bad-faith edit. (TW)"
  3. 09:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hhkohh (talk) to last revision by Nergaal. (TW)"
  4. 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group G table. (TW)"
  2. 09:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:FIFA World Cup group table sidebar. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit without any discussion, and accuse me that I threatened him on my talk page, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You reverted 3 times AND came to threaten me on my talk page. You knew you broke the 3RR and throw threats still. WC 2018 is happening now, it is the only one being edited now, not the 2014 one. Your original edit was pointless. Last time I remeber, those who break the 3RR deliberatelly, get rollback permissions removed. Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I am 3, but you are 4 (more than 3) on a single page. Hhkohh (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
3RR means revert more than 3 edits on a single page. Hhkohh (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
FFS who gave you higher-level editing permissions? You dont even know what wp:3RR says but you come accuse me of it: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Somebody should take back the rollback eprmissions this guy has since he blatantly does not know the rules. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyways, so you first undo my edit, and call my original edit an undo? And come edit a topic that you obviously know nothing about? I am sure at this point you have no idea that {{2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table}} uses that navbox, and all the other 17 linked articles there are currently being edited for the 2018 edition. Meanwhile the 2014 cup is not being edited, but you come undo my edits inside a nabvox inside hidden templates? Go troll somewhere else, since this is a topic you obviously know very little about, yet you feel comfortable abusing the privilleges you have been given. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edits in this template will not affact 2018 while having added |year=2018 but will affact 2014. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
You can add |year=2014 on 2014 template if you want. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pinging PeterTheFourth who last reverted this page. Hhkohh (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying that instead of starting an ANI threat you knew the alternative all along and chose to ignore it? Good job! /s Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Notified WT:FOOTY. Hhkohh (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify how pointless the initial revert by Hhkohh has been, the navbox template is linked only in 16 templates and those templates are hidden from mainspace usage so new editors can't easily modify those 16. 8 of these templates have not been edited since 2017, and have not received major edits since 2014. But the "reporter" here has insisted on reverting my original edit that simply updated the 2014 usage to 2018. I don't see how this crass amount of lack of good faith on behalf of Hhkohh is tolerated, and how has he been bestowed the various privileges he has been when he jumps into a revert war on navbox templates two layers beneath mainspace access. I suggest admins take a closer look at the behavior of this "reporter". Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
If you add |year=2014 then you change the template, I have no oppose and I don't revert your edits. Hhkohh (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted. Pretty sure going into an old template for a past world cup and changing the dates to be 'current' is missing the point of the template. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Only three reverts apiece here. Number 57 11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Midnightblueowl (Result: )[edit]

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrnobody1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]

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

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

Comments: Last week, Mrnobody1997 received a 24 hour block for edit warring on the British National Party article, administered by User:EdJohnston. In the past 24 hours, they have returned to edit warring (albeit only once) and disruptively editing on the same article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)