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
Line 383: Line 383:
*::::(+1) to MartinEvans but then, Courcelles is correct too:-) Overall, one of the most ridiculous hills to sacrifice one's editing privileges upon.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">&#x222F;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
*::::(+1) to MartinEvans but then, Courcelles is correct too:-) Overall, one of the most ridiculous hills to sacrifice one's editing privileges upon.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">&#x222F;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
*:::::All EEng needs to do to be unblocked is promise not to continue this edit war, {{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}. That's it. (Yes, I know his version is currently the active version) If he does that, I'll actually fully ''unblock'', not reduce the block to something lesser. That's my promise ot you, {{u|EEng}}. You up for it? [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
*:::::All EEng needs to do to be unblocked is promise not to continue this edit war, {{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}. That's it. (Yes, I know his version is currently the active version) If he does that, I'll actually fully ''unblock'', not reduce the block to something lesser. That's my promise ot you, {{u|EEng}}. You up for it? [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:20, 28 November 2018

    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:219.79.126.173 reported by User:B dash (Result: Semi)

    Page
    2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    219.79.126.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 219.78.190.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC) "Very strange IMO"
    2. 02:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Season summary */ responded"
    3. 02:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC) "You have to consider those who are reading from computer and desktop"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Removing the image in the season summary, and the user can't provide any strong reason to remove it B dash (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BilCat reported by User:37.152.231.50 (Result: Tell you what, discuss it at the talk page, and if the disruption continues, then we can block someone)

    Continuing discussion is unlikely to change the outcome of this report (already closed by Black Kite on 25 November). People were reverting about usage of bold face. Feel free to resolve that on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Apollo Command/Service Module (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BilCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt was made by the user to justify their edits. Their behaviour seems like simple trolling. Had they provided a single coherent edit summary we surely could have discussed something.

    Comments:

    I made a couple of edits to Apollo Command/Service Module to improve its appearance. The word "Apollo" was in bold face, separately from the text "Command/Service Module", and later in the intro, the words "Command Module" and "Service Module" were also in bold face. MOS:BOLD says that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" so I edited the article accordingly.[7]

    I did not expect anyone to object to this. What possible objection could there be? So I was surprised when the user reverted, with the edit summary "not necessarily". I reinstated my edit, with a link to the manual of style. The user reverted again, with the edit summary "obviously, it doesn't apply per WP:IAR". Now I think that's very clearly just simple trolling. They are at this point reverting for fun, with no serious intent to improve the article. I reinstated my edit, they re-reverted, yet again with no reason, and I reinstated it once more. A little over 24 hours later, the user reappeared and undid the edit once more. Their fourth revert came 26 hours and 9 minutes after their first. As it says on this page, "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."

    To reiterate, this was a simple format fix, there was no possible reason to oppose the edit, there is no "content dispute" or anything - this is just User:BilCat, who I see has been blocked on a number of previous occasions, engaging in trolling. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be fair, I can see both points of view here. How about discussing it at the talk page instead? Because neither of you have tried that, have you? Then no-one will have to block anyone, and the world will be a happier place. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • So on the one hand, you've got a simple style fix, and on the other, you've got a troll reverting it for no reason and gaming the system while doing so. And you can see both points of view??? Perhaps you can explain to me what points of view you see. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's saying that the separate parts of the craft should be in bold face the first time they appear on their own (which isn't totally unreasonable, if a bit quirky), you don't agree. Personally I would agree with you, but there is room for discussion, which still hasn't started on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • He has not said that anywhere. If I missed the bit where that was stated, in an edit summary or on a talk page, please give a link. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            This is already covered by guidelines, anyway. No big discussion, much less a slapping contest, is necessary. One of the major reasons we have a style guideline is to obviate the need to re-re-re-repeat tedious basic style discussions on an article-by-article basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and I did not report the user here for ignoring style guidelines, I reported them for breaking the 3RR. I'm surprised that you and others approve of their conduct, and attack me for reporting it. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • See MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDSYN. We only apply boldface, ever, for very specific reasons. Redundantly highlighting the name of something is not one of them. "Service Module" and "Command Module" are already bolded in the lead, per BOLDSYN, and they already have their own headings (which are already huge and bold), so bolding them yet again at first occurrence in the text under these sections is pointless. BilCat's rationale (trying to "even out" things from a visual stylization/balance perspective) isn't applicable on Wikipedia (though perhaps is an understandable initial impulse). We are not boldfacing these to emphasize them as "significant" or "famous", or make them "pop" from a designerly point of view, or because it looks nifty to someone subjectively (e.g., because they're used to a different style like the boldfacing of entry cross-references in field guides, or whatever). We're doing it for one, codified reason only: because the term in question redirects there as a major subtopic or synonym. If it already has BOLDSYN treatment in the lead and has its own heading, this purpose has already been served.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      PS: I don't always agree with BilCat, but he's clearly not a troll. Inappropriately calling people trolls or vandals (terms with very specific, narrow meanings on Wikipedia) – especially doing at a WP:Noticeboard – has a tendency to be interpreted as a WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA violation and to result in a WP:BOOMERANG block, thus it is ill-advised. See also WP:HOTHEADS for how to stay out of trouble yourself when dealing with editors you think are troublesome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @SMcCandlish - I don't understand some of your points here. The article was long-term stable with the component names bolded in the lead. Your own comments at MOS support this. The IP began by removing it. Bill has done nothing novel here. Nor has he bolded any of the occurrences other than the first appearance in the lead. I cannot speak to his rationale for this (let alone for something he doesn't appear to have done) and I can't see where he has stated any of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP's first edit was at 00:25, 23 November 2018, and here we are. I don't believe that he's a new editor. He knows too much about Wiki policies and procedures. And, his edit pattern and comments indicate he's looking for a fight. Therefore, PER BOOMERANG BLOCK IP 37.152.231.50.--RAF910 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Incredible! When reporting a clear violation of the rules, I expected that someone would warn the rule breaker not to behave in that way. Instead, several people have attacked me, and now someone says I should be blocked because I "know too much about Wiki policies and procedures"!!! 37.152.231.50 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So, a clear violation of the rules resulted in not a single word said to the rule violator, but a series of attacks on the violation reporter, culminating in that astonishing call to be blocked for knowing the rules. The rule violator had clearly been previously emboldened, judging by their conspicuous total absence from this discussion, and their edit summary when removing my notification from their talk page. So, the result here is clearly a common one, and we can predict with a high level of confidence that User:BilCat will behave in the same way in the future. I, on the other hand, will not bother to report anything else here. Everybody happy with this outcome, I trust. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, you're making the same disruptive edits here. Guidelines are just that, and the one you're attempting to enforce is mostly ignored, rendering it moot per WP:IAR, as I explained in my first revert. You're response was an insult, so I didn't pursue further discussion on the article's talk page for that reason, and have since treated your edits as disruptive, which they are. As I subsequently explained, I was willing to discuss this issue civilly with you on the article's talk page, but instead you came here. As you've also been told, Beware the Boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • applying a guideline is not disruptive. Breaking the 3RR is disruptive. You did that, not me.
    • the guideline I applied is not mostly ignored. About 99% of articles comply with it.
    • even if you weren't lying about that, it would not give you the right to break the 3RR
    • IAR does not support any aspect of your behaviour.
    Despite all of that, it's unfortunately clear that you have some kind of protection from certain administrators. Clearly you expected that I would be attacked for reporting your violation of the rules and indeed that was the case. Nevertheless, your 3RR violation and your inability to comprehend a very simple guideline are permanently recorded. 46.208.152.45 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Exergizer reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] and again, [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    Blocked – 48 hours. This could either be WP:CIR or a hoax: "This suction from the future is exerted by the brain of the most intelligent man, who pulls all history towards himself and thus undergoes a 13.8 billion year long self-assembly". This is his proposed addition to a physics article on potential energy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: @EdJohnston: see also [16]. Very, very similar. - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: no vio)

    Page
    Thank U, Next (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 13:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC) to 13:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      1. 13:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870682055 by Leaton101 (talk)"
      2. 13:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870681820 by Leaton101 (talk)"
      3. 13:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870622231 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has a long-term history of violating the 3RR, and has received five separates blocks for edit warring. His reverts seem to also center around Ariana Grande and articles related to her; perhaps a topic ban might be in place to help avoid these issues, as well? User has received four warnings since June about this behaviour, two of which happened in the past month. Their last block, in August of 2017, also resulted in a case of Failure or refusal to "get the point" — as pointed out by administrator Alex Shih at the time. livelikemusic talk! 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sushar1 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

    Page
    Nayanthara filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sushar1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870658900 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
    2. 06:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870657106 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 06:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC) to 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      1. 06:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC) ""
      2. 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Films in filmography tables */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Filmography tables should not include films that are yet to begin shooting. But he keeps adding Thalapathy 63, a film which begins shooting only the coming January. My attempts to revert his edits are always undone. He even reverted my advice on his talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beall4 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Beall4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff copying discussion from my talk page to the article talk page. 02:29, 19 November 2018

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 01:56, 26 November 2018 restored them
    2. diff 02:19, 26 November 2018 restored them
    3. diff 16:55, 26 November 2018 restored them
    4. diff 17:31, 26 November 2018 restored some of them
    5. diff 21:14, 26 November 2018 restored them
    6. diff 21:42, 26 November 2018 yet again, just now

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: About the content, see [User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet here]. About this copying my comments thing, see diff and these two comments, as well as comments at the article talk page.

    Comments:
    This silly thing on the talk page is about their very bad edits here and here, which were terrible. This person is unwilling to engage with MEDRS and seems to be abusing 3O to hunt for someone who will just say "yes" to their edits. Very strange. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    added yet another diff. This is so strange, and such a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for talk page edit warring on Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Willwill0415 reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Willwill0415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17] 2018-11-21T22:07:10

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 2018-11-24T23:48:18, 4 consecutive edits
    2. diff 2018-11-25T07:45:51
    3. diff 2018-11-25T22:34:16
    4. diff 2018-11-26T20:20:35, 5 consecutive edits
    5. diff 2018-11-26T20:53:49

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:

    User:Willwill0415 has repeatedly injected PoV promotional language, falsified multiple references, removed reference, added undue attribution and used no or unrelated/unreliable sources for their changes. The user rejected community input and consensus-building process, and accused other editors on the page "POV warriors".

    The editor has previously disruptively edited gender-related topics and earned an indefinite topic ban.

    Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Willwill0415 is not here to create an encyclopedia; they are here to push a right-wing agenda and to whitewash subject matter in this regards. They have frivolously opened ARBCOM cases and have earned an indef. topic ban for their editing style.--Jorm (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know if there's history between them but @Jorm: attacked Will on the talkpage He's a right-wing warrior and is probably heading for a topic ban. Arguing with him is probably not worth your time [18] then threatened him I know who you are, Will. [19] 3RR is minor and Will should revert but threats and intimidation are serious. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are comments on user conduct and hardly attacks. Will's edit history clearly suggests that they are not a left-wing activist as they claimed. This IP editor then disruptively removed Jorm's comments: [20][21][22], a violation WP:TPO.
    Actually, seeing this IP coming right up whenever Willwill0415 got into disputes, I suggest we launch an sockpuppet investigation, if necessary. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Jorm. Willwill0415 and I have clashed at the incel article, after which he accused both Jorm and I of ownership at an ArbCom case that was declined by all arbitrators who voted. Soon after the case was declined he turned up at ANI with the same complaint, and got the boomerang topic ban a few of us warned he might be walking into. Instead of learning what he did wrong, I see he's just moved to a different topic area and continued the same POV-pushing, edit-warring, and refusal to discuss changes or attempt to achieve consensus. I'd suggest a topic ban from contemporary American politics, but honestly at this point I don't think he can edit constructively anywhere on this project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support an indefinite topic ban on contemporary American politics for this editor. Should they continue the same behavior on any other topics or violate topic ban, I would suggest a permanent block once and for all to save everyone's time. It seems Will really worked hard to earn this. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 month In addition, a topic ban is needed, since Willwill01415 appears to be jumping from one hot politics-related topic to another with accusations and edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've imposed a six-month topic ban, similar to those imposed under similar circumstances. If the topic ban is breached when this block expires, the next step would most likely be an indefinite block rather than a ban extension, unless Willwill0415 shows productive activity in some unrelated area of the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk)
    While we're here @Acroterion: can you take a look at that anon account posting above ([23]) - all the edits involve either trolling (for example [24]) or harassment and stalking (this is someone who posts on one of the reddit forums and neo-Nazi forums on voat). Volunteer Marek 06:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek: Could you present evidence on the IP is a stalker from neo-Nazi forums? This would be necessary for us to discuss what actions we should take. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to link to that crap which I'm not going to do. Regardless, their on wiki comments and edits are sufficient for a block. Volunteer Marek 14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek is involved in an edit war with the anon editor at Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, but it should be obvious that the anon editor's behavior is exclusively WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented and they are a big net-negative here. I support an indef. Furthermore, the editor clearly began stalking VM at a contentious talk page a few days after their block had expired. This makes me suspect that they are doing the good hand–bad hand routine. wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willwill0415 lied about being a left-wing activist. His contribs certainly doesn't quack like his statements. On his talk page he expressed intention to violate his TBAN at first opportunity. At this point an indefinite block would certainly save everyone's time, since this user clearly has no intention to build an encyclopedia.
    And that IP. A separate EW report or ANI? Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No action)

    Page
    World Chess Championship 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    211.27.126.189 (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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    After a previous block for similar ceaseless reverting User continues to revert despite discussion against the user's proposed change (namely option 2 regarding trivial framework). Combined with the competence issues as repeatedly raised by myself and Fbergo, I recommend a block through at least the year's end, when the World Rapid and Blitz Championship will be held in Moscow. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any edit warring. The user is participating in the discussions. How about a revert limit, like 1RR for chess articles? wumbolo ^^^ 21:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, how was I edit warring after my previous block?211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.178.37.100 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Sockblock)

    Page
    Talk:Tom and Jerry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    86.178.37.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871004921 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) fuck off"
    2. 09:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871004685 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) you need to fuck your ass and fuck off"
    3. 09:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871004526 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) as if"
    4. 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868930235 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Tom and Jerry. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Restoring comments is not allowed."
    2. 09:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk) to last revision by FilmandTVFan28. (TW)"
    3. 09:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk): WATCH YOUR MOUTH!! (TW)"
    4. 09:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk): I SAID WATCH YOUR MOUTH!!!! (TW)"
    Comments:

    Blocked as a sock of LTA User:Iniced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Durrani khurasan reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: )

    Page: Durrani Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Durrani khurasan (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. User's first controversial edits: [25] [26]
    2. First correction: [27]
    3. User reverts to disputed version (#1): [28]
    4. Second correction (different editor): [29]
    5. User reverts (#2): [30]
    6. Third correction (by me): [31]
    7. User reverts (#3): [32]
    8. Fourth correction (by me): [33]
    9. User reverts (#4): [34]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Comments:

    Abuse over Taking of Pelham 123

    User:68.197.237.168 reported by User:Plummer (Result: )

    Page: The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 68.197.237.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=870893435

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:

    This user has a history of being abusive and was banned several times. He's at it again. Here are his threats posted on my talk page:

    Knock it off with the constant useless overly detailed information. I will keep on reverting if you do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Wikia site and not a fan site. Am I well understood? No? Okay, game on then. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Explain the plot by how exactly? Elaborate, kiddo. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought...no answer. I've reverted your edits. Every plot written is suppose to be between 400-700 words or simplistic as possible. Get over yourself. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't give two cents. 400-700 words. Period. This is not a fanboy and fangirl site. You want to continue playing? Game on, brother. Also learn how to cite your sources properly and sign at the end of each sentence. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you took a look by clicking on the Wikipedia guideline I linked above, don't let me catch you messing with the Pelham 123 article again. You got that? It is a feature film and as per rule, plot summaries should be between 400-700 words or below. Simple as that. Have a good night. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay? I’ll take care of the plot summary within the article so it doesn’t exceed that number. If I ever catch your full of crap self messing with the article, I will personally make you miserable. Do we have an understand of one another? Yes? Now gtfo of my talk page and the article for good, dingus. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EEng and User:TParis reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: )

    Page
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of EEng's reverts
    1. 14:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Again, if you'll take the time to examine the links given earlier you'll see that the situation is quite the reverse of what you're saying. If not, well then believe whatever helps you sleep at night."
    2. 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "You'll need to carefully read my preceding edit summary (the one beginning "I suggest you review the history before butting in") and follow the links there, noting in particular the page on which those edits were made; and if you still don't understand see Special:Diff/870935348#ANI_Nonsense"
    3. 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "I suggest you review the history before butting in;this post was arbitrarily removed in violation ofWP:TPO("Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed,but normally you should stop if there is any objection"&there is nothing here qualifying for an exception to that)prior to the thread being archived.SeeSpecial:Diff/870726899,Special:Diff/870743524,Special:Diff/870787911.This is an entirely serious comment on the discussion,whether U see it or not"
    4. 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) ""The thread is closed"--followon comments are routinely appended to "closed" threads;a random editor's decision to close doesn't bind everyone else;you may not see the value but that's just you."This is an admin action on an admin noticeboard"--yes&admins are more than just normal users w/mops and buckets&have sergeant-like authority.But seriously,you must be joking.See links in my prior edit summary&if you want to come out of semiretirement you may need to go back to admin school."
    5. 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Restoring post removed by an admin who needs to review WP:TPO and WP:ATTACK (by which he probably means WP:RPA, which he should also review) and who could, I suppose, open an ANI thread on the point and see what happens. Silently removing, according to one's personal estimate of what's helpful, the posts of other editors in good standing is not on."
    6. 19:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870726899 by TParis (talk) ... in your blinkered, impoverished view of what constitutes helpful, perhaps. But luckily the rest of us aren't bound by that."
    7. 02:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ +"
    Diffs of TParis' reverts
    1. 14:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Per WP:NPA. The thread is closed and this is an admin action on an admin noticeboard."
    2. 00:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870743524 by EEng (talk) Rm per WP:ATTACK"
    3. 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Not remotely helpful and most definitely not needed"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


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

    This is an odd situation and I'm not sure if it's better to report here or at ANI, but it is an edit war so here we are. EEng and TParis got themselves into a dispute about adding an image of a pie eating contest (my description) to a closed ANI thread, which in the midst of the dispute has been archived. A number of administrators have asked EEng if adding this image to the archive is really something they want to be WP:POINTy about, and it's evident as this revert war drags into its second day that they do. There's a lot of "he started it!" happening here, I've already reverted once myself, this needs an uninvolved admin to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Admin that keeps removing ANi comments needs the admonishment. EEng is entitled to comment. Pretty lame to call his comment a personal attack and lamer still to bring this to AN3. Surely there is some pressing Admining to somewhere that is more pressing. Ivanvector I respect your judgement normally so I'm surprised to see you file this report. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Not really. I don't know who's "to blame"—often in edit wars, everyone is—but, maaaan, this needs to go straight to WP:LAME. ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be preferable to just block? EEng is well over 3RR, and obviously intending to continue. But there's the allegation that they're defending the 'pedia from rouge admins, so I think this needs wider attention. Also, please don't use "lame" like this, I'm pretty sure that "weak" would have got your point across without the ableist slur. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, that shortcut is a conundrum, isn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I didn't notice Lpac use the word as well :D ——SerialNumber54129 15:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=871048441"