Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
*{{AN3|w}}. While the edit warring involved content-related matters and not vandalism as the reported user believed it was, it was an honest mistake on his part, and he only reverted the other user three times and didn't go further. I left him a message on his talk page, reminded him to take care and to know for certain what he's reverting before he reverts it, and to be careful next time. That's the only action I feel was needed.... case closed :-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|w}}. While the edit warring involved content-related matters and not vandalism as the reported user believed it was, it was an honest mistake on his part, and he only reverted the other user three times and didn't go further. I left him a message on his talk page, reminded him to take care and to know for certain what he's reverting before he reverts it, and to be careful next time. That's the only action I feel was needed.... case closed :-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Australian43]] and others reported by [[User:Deb]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Australian43]] and others reported by [[User:Deb]] (Result: No action) == |
||
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Australian43}} </br> |
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Australian43}} </br> |
||
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Undergroundtennis123}}</br> |
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Undergroundtennis123}}</br> |
||
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
::The set of red-linked accounts does look odd, but they appear to be different people. The SPI was negative. In my opinion [[User:Deb]] should stay away from admin action on an article she has edited, since this is not obvious vandalism or BLP violation. Semi is already in place. [[WP:ECP]] wouldn't stop the war since everyone has over 500 edits. {{user|Australian43}} and {{user|Arbeit10}} hardly ever communicate. Some regular editors who are obviously not socks such as {{user|Tvx1}} also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=849266125 want to remove the material] that Deb prefers to keep. Probably this should close with no action. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
::The set of red-linked accounts does look odd, but they appear to be different people. The SPI was negative. In my opinion [[User:Deb]] should stay away from admin action on an article she has edited, since this is not obvious vandalism or BLP violation. Semi is already in place. [[WP:ECP]] wouldn't stop the war since everyone has over 500 edits. {{user|Australian43}} and {{user|Arbeit10}} hardly ever communicate. Some regular editors who are obviously not socks such as {{user|Tvx1}} also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=849266125 want to remove the material] that Deb prefers to keep. Probably this should close with no action. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|EdJohnston}} Well, I ''am'' trying to stay away from it, that's why I've reported it here. It's not just odd, it's truly weird. I mean, ''four'' anonymous SPAs making the same reversions? Is that an indication of good faith? Not just reverting the initial change that some feel is "irrelevant", but ''every'' addition I make? There have also been multiple failed attempts to log into my ID since yesterday. I'm somewhat shocked by the conduct of [[User:Tvx1]], getting him/herself involved in an edit war ''after'' it's been reported here; so far he/she is the only experienced wikipedian to have made a reversion. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|EdJohnston}} Well, I ''am'' trying to stay away from it, that's why I've reported it here. It's not just odd, it's truly weird. I mean, ''four'' anonymous SPAs making the same reversions? Is that an indication of good faith? Not just reverting the initial change that some feel is "irrelevant", but ''every'' addition I make? There have also been multiple failed attempts to log into my ID since yesterday. I'm somewhat shocked by the conduct of [[User:Tvx1]], getting him/herself involved in an edit war ''after'' it's been reported here; so far he/she is the only experienced wikipedian to have made a reversion. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' No action, per my reasoning above. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=849266125 whether the statement about Andy Murray deserves to be included here]. Use [[WP:DR]] to get opinions. If the talk page reaches a conclusion, then blocks could be issued for anyone reverting against the consensus. It should be obvious that membership in WikiProject Tennis is not a prerequisite for editing this article. I recommend that [[User:Deb]] ask another admin to review the blocks she issued to the two IPs, to avoid concerns about [[WP:INVOLVED]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Unnamelessness]], reported by [[User:Deb]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Unnamelessness]], reported by [[User:Deb]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 20:44, 8 July 2018
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
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.
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. |
|
User:Miwako Sato reported by wolf (Result: Stale )
Page: Underwater Demolition Assault Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miwako Sato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1] (this just prior first edit changing disputed content, not included in the four diffs noted below)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (immediately deleted as "ridiculous")
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As seen in the page history, this user was repeatedly encouraged to engage in discussion on the article talk page, via the following edit summaries;
- "
Discuss "SEAL" vs "Seal" & source changes in personnel
" - "
as explained in the edit summary, discuss on the talk page
" - "
dont debate via edit summary... that what tp is for
"
Diff of 3RRNB report notification: [7]
Comments:
This user has demonstrated a complete refusal to discuss and a continued intention to edit war. - wolf 04:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- A complete refusal to discuss? A discussion has been started at the Talk Page of the article in question, please go and see it before accusing people just because you don't want to have an article updated. Thanks! --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- A discussion that was started only after you edit warred, violated 4RR, was warned about it and repeatedly asked to go to the talk page. - wolf 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale I believe the relevant phrase here is "better late than never" - discussion continues on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Kainoa808 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: No violation )
- Page
- Doug Chin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kainoa808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) to 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Political Positions */"
- 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Removed incorrect information"
- 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ removed incorrect information"
- 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
@Ifnord: I'm looking at this but why are we using primary sources hosted on a private website in a BLP? --NeilN talk to me 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Valid point. I didn't add that nor am I bonded to the article either way, simply reverting unexplained blanking of referenced material. Ifnord (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
No violation I'm going to be charitable and say Kainoa808 has got WP:3RRBLP on their side ie: removing clear BLP problems is exempt from the three revert rule, while their addition of content seems to cite a compliant source. Additionally, when I look at a dispute like this I go straight to the talk page to see what's been happening, and if I see nothing, I take a dim view of the complaint. Less reverting, more discussing all round, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will warn Kainoa808 that future mass deletions must be accompanied by a proper explanation or they are risking a block. --NeilN talk to me 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd go easy and be tactful if I were you - remember what WP:DOLT says : "When editors blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." (It might be that Kainoa808 has a conflict of interest, but that's another discussion). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll stand by my warning, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd go easy and be tactful if I were you - remember what WP:DOLT says : "When editors blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." (It might be that Kainoa808 has a conflict of interest, but that's another discussion). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
User:108.6.192.87 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Diplomatic Immunity (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 108.6.192.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849048826 by Jim1138 (talk)"
- 04:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "what part of I dont know what/who blackcrab is do you not understand? Please stop reverting until you prove this is a single."
- 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849023659 by Hayman30 (talk) I dont even know who blacccrab is?? You're just blocking me because I have a different viewpoint."
- 23:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848998388 by DovahDuck (talk) what is blaccrab? I'm simply saying there's no source for this as a single"
- 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848991278 by DovahDuck (talk) provide a source saying this was released, based on how this song came out, all of the songs on scorpion are single - music sites"
- 18:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848979395 by DovahDuck (talk) apologies but there was no consensus reached, nor a source that shows this song was released in any way other than as the second track on the EP; how is it different than any album cuts on scorpion?"
- 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "You can’t close it yourself, still open - why are you pushing for it to be a single, anyone with eyes can see how gods plan, nice for what were released and this wasn’t"
- 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "what reputable source that shows a release date or separate release of any kind (digitial download, radio, etc). Artists labels announce singles all the time that never come to fruition. This most recent source shows it didnt happen"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notice of edit warring */ oops"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Ss112 Discussion was attempted on Talk:Diplomatic Immunity (song)#This is not a single.. months ago.
- Comments:
Apparent block evasion by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlaccCrab per some of the revert ES:
Perhaps Diplomatic Immunity (song) should just be permanently PP? Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected. Protected for 24 hours. Go and find a Billboard source and use that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
User:117.136.106.66 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked LTA)
- Page
- Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 117.136.106.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Is a recurrent sock and has previous blocks for copycat disruption in the past. See links below.
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
[EDIT] Saved too quickly. Engaging in a multi-article revert war with what he (actually, yet another Whaterrs sock) deems to be a O1lI0 sock. Also serial block evasion (221.13.92.178 1, [16] and [17]) by Whaterrs. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Pinging you, and adding the remark that I just noticed Whaterrs reverts with such a blithe disregard that he also happened to insert a leading zero in a measurement statistic. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
User:73.229.62.200 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Keith Packard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 73.229.62.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
- 05:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "No more unsourced than the previous statement, which is untrue."
- 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
- 05:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
- 04:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
- 04:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
- 04:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Its factual commonly known info. no POV given."
- Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC) to 11:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- 08:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Its factual."
- 11:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Look at CVS commits."
- 08:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Its true, the guy caused it to fork."
- 08:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Keith Packard. (TW)"
- 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Keith Packard . (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
I have made no attempt to discuss this on the talk page since the IP's edits are unsourced BLP violations. One of the edits actually contradicts the cited source. Meters (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comments:
This is supposedly a dynamic IP but the POV edit warring behavior and some of the edit summaries suggest that this is the same user who has previously been blocked three times (most recently for three months by user:NeilN ). Compare the edit summaries prior to the previous blocks [18] "its fact", [19] "its not any point of view, its a fact", [20] "Its factual information" , [21] "the edit it factual and correct!", [22] "its common knowledge", with summaries of the current edits [23] "Its true", [24] "Its factual.", [25] "Its factual commonly known info. no POV given". Even the spelling mistake "its" for "it's " is consistent. Meters (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- IP and obvious sock 2601:283:4501:5d7d:a9c2:b97:595b:7b2 blocked 6 months for edit warring by user:Widr Meters (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 6 months by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:109.152.199.241 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Semi)
- Page
- 2017–18 Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 109.152.199.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849176733 by Egghead06 (talk)"
- 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849170425 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
- 01:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849168978 by Nzd (talk)"
- 01:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "He is German"
- 01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "He is German"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Warnings for vandalism have been made by other users and ignored Spike 'em (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Mattythewhite. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:יניב הורון reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Warned user)
- Page
- Hadi al-Modarresi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849040134 by Ofcom1 (talk) Stop removing sourced content or I'll report you for vandalism"
- 00:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849006419 by Ofcom1 (talk)"
- 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "rv vandalism"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user is aware of the outcome of edit warring, per warnings on his talk page. Btw, both parties are guilty. -- Mhhossein talk 10:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please look at the article and the SPA nonsense being added to it. Of course an experienced editor should know better than to edit war with a throw-away-account on a mission to right great wrongs, but try talking some sense into them before wasting everyone's time with a report here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to waste your time here. יניב הורון was persistently restoring an un-sourced portion along with reverting other changes done by Ofcom1 without trying to resolve the issue via talk page. On the other hand, I see Ofcom1, who's a new comer, were persistently removing sourced content without saying why. I've already warned Ofcom1. --Mhhossein talk 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think changing Islamic seminaries to religious seminaries or the Hussein government to Saddam's regime can be reverted as "vandalism". Unsourced content was restored also. There's very little value in reverting this way. Experienced editors are generally cautioned against these types of combative, pushy reverts that will inflame an edit war. Definitely, there should be at least a warning about restoring unsourced content while accusing other editors of vandalism - an editor is responsible for the full content of a revert.Seraphim System (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yaniv did not pass 3 reverts. His reverts are undoing removal of some 40% of the page (the Bahrain bit), which seems to be properly sourced. Filer had a history with AE reports against Yaniv.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's true, and I don't think there should be a block for this, but restoring unsourced content as vandalism is just as bad as edit warring to remove sourced content, and I think there should be a warning. Unless it's a type of behavior we want to see more of ... Seraphim System (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Here comes Icewhiz! It's a question why you appear almost every where יניב הורון is reported. There's no need to pass 3rr, he was given many warnings before this. Yeah, I've reported him at AE and he has revived warnings and blocks for his behavior. What's wrong with this? Btw, the admin decides whether יניב הורון needs his Nth warning or a block. --Mhhossein talk 14:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have his TP watched. Another thing to look at would be WP:BATTLEGROUND in relation to this filing - which does not seem to report a violation even without the vandalism provision in WP:3RR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The edit warring diffs I provided and יניב הורון's history of edit warring speak for themselves. --Mhhossein talk 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just take a look at this [26] GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The edit warring diffs I provided and יניב הורון's history of edit warring speak for themselves. --Mhhossein talk 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have his TP watched. Another thing to look at would be WP:BATTLEGROUND in relation to this filing - which does not seem to report a violation even without the vandalism provision in WP:3RR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Here comes Icewhiz! It's a question why you appear almost every where יניב הורון is reported. There's no need to pass 3rr, he was given many warnings before this. Yeah, I've reported him at AE and he has revived warnings and blocks for his behavior. What's wrong with this? Btw, the admin decides whether יניב הורון needs his Nth warning or a block. --Mhhossein talk 14:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's true, and I don't think there should be a block for this, but restoring unsourced content as vandalism is just as bad as edit warring to remove sourced content, and I think there should be a warning. Unless it's a type of behavior we want to see more of ... Seraphim System (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yaniv did not pass 3 reverts. His reverts are undoing removal of some 40% of the page (the Bahrain bit), which seems to be properly sourced. Filer had a history with AE reports against Yaniv.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think changing Islamic seminaries to religious seminaries or the Hussein government to Saddam's regime can be reverted as "vandalism". Unsourced content was restored also. There's very little value in reverting this way. Experienced editors are generally cautioned against these types of combative, pushy reverts that will inflame an edit war. Definitely, there should be at least a warning about restoring unsourced content while accusing other editors of vandalism - an editor is responsible for the full content of a revert.Seraphim System (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to waste your time here. יניב הורון was persistently restoring an un-sourced portion along with reverting other changes done by Ofcom1 without trying to resolve the issue via talk page. On the other hand, I see Ofcom1, who's a new comer, were persistently removing sourced content without saying why. I've already warned Ofcom1. --Mhhossein talk 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It's clear that Mhhossein is obsessed with banning me. It's "strange" that he didn't report the other user as well, despite he was removing tons of sourced content and I didn't break 3RR.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- You need to stop your reverts at some point. Note that you're no better at other pages. The other user was a new comer and I could not report him only after he was warned/informed against edit warring and 3RR, while you were well aware of them. You see that he had received my warning. --Mhhossein talk 01:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly aware of 3RR, that's precisely why I did not break that rule, despite the user I reverted was removing tons of well-sourced content for no good reason. In case you didn't know, you break 3RR when you make four reverts or more in a single article in less than 24 hours. Cheers.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Do I need to tell you that
"it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"
(see WP:EDITWAR). Also, the templates you were given clearly tell you that "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule." --Mhhossein talk 02:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)- If you take a look at the revision history you will find out User:Ofcom1 is the only one edit-warring (he is a WP:Single purpose account). My constructive reverts were aimed at restoring perfectly well-sourced material.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Do I need to tell you that
- I'm perfectly aware of 3RR, that's precisely why I did not break that rule, despite the user I reverted was removing tons of well-sourced content for no good reason. In case you didn't know, you break 3RR when you make four reverts or more in a single article in less than 24 hours. Cheers.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) is the only one who broke WP:3RR, but nobody notified him of this report. I have now left him a proper notice. Perhaps he will respond. I see no comments on the article talk page by either User:יניב הורון or User:Mhhossein. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: I wonder why your criteria is 3RR for a user with a definite background (see this case for instance). Why should I have made comments on the article talk page? Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) was a new comer and he was given warning after the edit war. --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The referred case was reported here, and closed as no violation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: I wonder why your criteria is 3RR for a user with a definite background (see this case for instance). Why should I have made comments on the article talk page? Ofcom1 (talk · contribs) was a new comer and he was given warning after the edit war. --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
יניב הורון is an extremely disruptive editor, with no redeeming features. Here are two examples:
- At Bielski partisans, three massive reverts -1199, -813 and -2319 compared to one "me too" talk page comment.
- At Koniuchy massacre, three massive reverts -1501, +1708, +1844 compared to two [27] "me too" talk page comments.
I'm not proposing these as revert violations. I'm just saying that an editor who adds nothing to a page except to make multi-edit reverts and trivial remarks in support of one "side" is being disruptive. A look at this editor's contribs shows that a large fraction are reverts. And I didn't get started on the endless pov-pushing. We would definitely be better off without this editor. Zerotalk 11:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- As Yaniv says, Ofcom1 is an SPA deleting perfectly valid sources. In this case, at least, Yaniv's reverts were fully justified.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- However I can't find that in the exceptions to 3RR list. Therefore, that does not justify anything even if he's a SPA. --Mhhossein talk 12:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record, user in question is harrassing me in my talk page with fake warnings, not to mention he already broke 3RR several times in the article.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned. While the edit warring involved content-related matters and not vandalism as the reported user believed it was, it was an honest mistake on his part, and he only reverted the other user three times and didn't go further. I left him a message on his talk page, reminded him to take care and to know for certain what he's reverting before he reverts it, and to be careful next time. That's the only action I feel was needed.... case closed :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Australian43 and others reported by User:Deb (Result: No action)
- User being reported: Australian43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User being reported: Undergroundtennis123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User being reported: Arbeit10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Page in dispute: 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undergroundtennis123
Diffs of the reverts: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]
- Comment.Multiple users appear to be working together to remove sourced information that I've added to articles on men's tennis. Those who have been involved so far in making exactly the same removals include User:Undergroundtennis123 (joined the project 28 March 2017), who seems to have inadvertently revealed himself as the same person who was User:Underground123, User:Arbeit10 (already warned multiple times by other users for removing sourced information), User:Australian43, two anonymous SPAs (User:2601:140:8001:8BE4:E04A:1721:37E6:EF8C and User:2601:140:8001:8BE4:5870:54C:EC05:ECC8), both of whom I've blocked, and, most recently, User:Unnamelessness (joined the project 19 August 2017). Most of these users have a distinctive edit history involving blank user pages, a low overall edit count, and edits to the same set of articles. A sockpuppet investigation has failed to uncover any collusion, but it is clearly not coincidence that the same additions are being removed over and over again by "different" contributors. I would be interested in the opinions of other experienced contributors. Deb (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Additional comment. User talk:Ui56k has now joined the throng rushing to revert any information I might add to the lede. His user profile shows similarities to the others mentioned above: blank user page, joined in 2016, relatively low edit count, only apparently interested in tennis and snooker articles. Like the others, he/she is not a member of WikiProject Tennis either. Deb (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The set of red-linked accounts does look odd, but they appear to be different people. The SPI was negative. In my opinion User:Deb should stay away from admin action on an article she has edited, since this is not obvious vandalism or BLP violation. Semi is already in place. WP:ECP wouldn't stop the war since everyone has over 500 edits. Australian43 (talk · contribs) and Arbeit10 (talk · contribs) hardly ever communicate. Some regular editors who are obviously not socks such as Tvx1 (talk · contribs) also want to remove the material that Deb prefers to keep. Probably this should close with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Well, I am trying to stay away from it, that's why I've reported it here. It's not just odd, it's truly weird. I mean, four anonymous SPAs making the same reversions? Is that an indication of good faith? Not just reverting the initial change that some feel is "irrelevant", but every addition I make? There have also been multiple failed attempts to log into my ID since yesterday. I'm somewhat shocked by the conduct of User:Tvx1, getting him/herself involved in an edit war after it's been reported here; so far he/she is the only experienced wikipedian to have made a reversion. Deb (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The set of red-linked accounts does look odd, but they appear to be different people. The SPI was negative. In my opinion User:Deb should stay away from admin action on an article she has edited, since this is not obvious vandalism or BLP violation. Semi is already in place. WP:ECP wouldn't stop the war since everyone has over 500 edits. Australian43 (talk · contribs) and Arbeit10 (talk · contribs) hardly ever communicate. Some regular editors who are obviously not socks such as Tvx1 (talk · contribs) also want to remove the material that Deb prefers to keep. Probably this should close with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Result: No action, per my reasoning above. There seems to be a good-faith disagreement on whether the statement about Andy Murray deserves to be included here. Use WP:DR to get opinions. If the talk page reaches a conclusion, then blocks could be issued for anyone reverting against the consensus. It should be obvious that membership in WikiProject Tennis is not a prerequisite for editing this article. I recommend that User:Deb ask another admin to review the blocks she issued to the two IPs, to avoid concerns about WP:INVOLVED. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Unnamelessness, reported by User:Deb (Result: )
Page: 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [38]
Page: 2016 French Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [39]
Comments:
See previous entry
User:Sheena Dwivedi reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )
- Page
- Sasural Simar Ka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Sheena Dwivedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 04:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Comment on my own edits: I noticed towards the end of a lot of vandalism patrolling last night that I might've run up against 3RR myself for this page. It also appears that Huggle wasn't posting talk page warnings, although edit summaries explained my reverts of Sheena Dwivedi were for unexplained page blanking. As such, I think my reverts follow exemption #4 of NOT3RR. Still, I'll try to be more cautious in the future to make sure that warnings get posted to the user's talk page. --Policy Reformer(c) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Dr pragmatists reported by User:Bilby (Result: )
Page: List of political parties in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr pragmatists (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- I edit conflicted with Bilby making the exact same report. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The page has been protected by Doug Weller for a couple days. SQLQuery me! 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: )
Page: Talk:Khalistan movement#RFC on Resurgence/Activity of the Khalistan Movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] [56] [57] [58]
Comments:
Another user is repeatedly adding unsigned content to the beginning of our RfC in Talk:Khalistan movement. I'm not sure of the correct procedure or how to deal with this. We can't agree on a way to keep the RfC header brief and neutral.
This user is the opposing party in the RfC. I do not want this user blocked or banned, because then he couldn't make his case at the RfC. I just want him to stop manipulating the content at the beginning. I feel like I am in a bind.
The article we are discussing, Khalistan movement, is already locked because of a previous edit war User:DBigXray started mid dispute resolution [59]. Due to this edit war, the moderator locked our debate. DBigXray sought a 3O, but then accused our 3O of being a sock [60] and he repeatedly attempted to hat our 3O's comment [61] [62]. Now we're at it with this RfC.
Not sure if this is the correct avenue, but to me (and apparently the other editor diff) it appears like a clear edit war. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- To The Reviewing Admin, I have not violated 3RR but the filing editor has already made 4 Reverts. and templating at the same time. A WP:BOOMERANG is in place. Thanks. --DBigXray 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Adding time stamps and note to diffs reported above.
- 22:14, 7 July 2018 First Edit (based on Elephant hunters advice (to present our points seperately) and not actually a revert. Also note the time stamps.
- 22:40, 8 July 2018 Revert 1
- 23:25, 8 July 2018 Revert 2
- 00:11, 9 July 2018 Revert 3 --DBigXray 20:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The rules state "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." My diffs show you clearly reverting material 4 times in a ~24 hour window. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, so the latter three edits all within a 24 hour window and a clear 3RR violation. The first edit is not. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it's appropriate to list all revert diffs in the edit war, not just 3RR diffs, when reporting users for edit warring. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: )
Page: Talk:Khalistan movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 21:56, 7 July 2018
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:56, 7 July 2018
- 21:07, 8 July 2018
- 22:51, 8 July 2018
- 23:08, 8 July 2018
- 23:47, 8 July 2018
- 00:19, 9 July 2018
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:31, 9 July 2018 Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Khalistan movement. wrote a note to self revert and Gave a chance to the The user to self revert to prevent 3RR but the user ignored. and filed AN3 report instead.
- 01:36, 9 July 2018
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Based on his arguements in the report above, the user being reported is perfectly aware of the 3RR rules and its requirements. By asking to self revert I had given him a chance to self revert and prevent this report from being filed but he instead decided to file an AN3 against me with stale Difs in an attempt to win imaginary WP:BATTLE--DBigXray 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)