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 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.
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.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 1 week)
- 2 User:2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B reported by User:Dusti (Result: Already semied)
- 3 User:Lamberd reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Protected)
- 4 User:Fineartsme reported by User:JarrahTree (Result: Page protected )
- 5 User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours)
- 6 User:ImaArianator reported by User:Aoi (Result: Page protected )
- 7 User:Thenabster126 reported by User:Lamberd (Result: Both blocked)
- 8 User:Isold1 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: 24 hours)
- 9 User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)
- 10 User:Ban kavalir reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)
- 11 User:Havsjö reported by User:Havsjö (Result: Warning)
- 12 User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: 24 hours, both)
User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 1 week)
- 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: Decline in insect populations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This is a report about edit warring, not 3RR. Kingofaces is engaged in wholesale reverts and complex partial reverts. To show the reverts, the following focuses on three paragraphs and a blockquote.
Diffs. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comments:
Kingofaces is repeatedly removing the same sources and text about studies from Decline in insect populations.
The article was created in February, and the constant reverting has stymied article development. I've several times prepared text only to find that the sentence or paragraph I wanted to expand had gone. In addition to removing a paragraph about a notable study—the Krefeld study (Hallmann et al. 2017, PLOS One)—seven times from the decline article, he has reverted eight times at Insect to remove it as a source: 23 Oct 2017; 28 Jan 2019; 29 Jan 2019; 31 Jan 2019; 1 Feb 2019; 2 Feb 2019; 10 Feb 2019; and 17 Feb 2019. He won't even allow a link to the decline article in the lead of Insect (diff).
I asked him twice on 27 March to revert himself at the decline article (04:28 and 04:32). He didn't and instead arrived again on 31 March with another series of reverts. SarahSV (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 week. If the editor realizes they've gone against talk page consensus and agree to not continue the edit-warring, the block can be lifted immediately. Otherwise, this is going to soon get elongated into an indefinite block. Lourdes 08:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
After the block
I didn't get a chance to respond to what has amounted to directly misrepresenting me in the few hours that passed since filing, so I have to do that here now after the fact. In my unblock review, Doc James also pointed out there was not a significant concern in my main edits listed at this case, so those comments are a good starting summary of what I'm trying to work with at least.
It’s quite concerning that SlimVirgin tried to pad this request in such a manner and hide the underlying problem and point the finger at those trying to deal with it. Most of this just shows article development that's been done in many edits (and me trying to manage others edit warring without running to AE all the time). To start, I had been requested by another editor as part of talk page discussion to make the most recent round of edits (If you feel my revert restored any other "outright failed verification", then pls either specify, or maybe just re-do that part of your edit & see if others accept it.
)[1] where no further direct edits were going to be made after that last request, yet SlimVirgin immediately went here to try to sanction me despite being around for those comments. That’s pure WP:GAMING omitting that here. For their comments about March 27, they left out my responses[2][3] specifically saying I couldn't undo those edits because WP:ONUS was very clear SV needed to gain consensus for the edits, not blanket revert them back in even though they made a pointy edit summary telling me to gain consensus instead that was gaming onus policy.
With edits before that invitation, if you actually read the talk page, I had been removing these related edits per ONUS when editors did not gain consensus for them on the talk page, and dealing with editors who habitually avoid that policy is just messy no matter how you approach things. Some of my edits were removals, others were attempts to fix specific issues so it wouldn't have to be removed. Everything Slimvirgin shows is basically an example of, "Look at all the times Kingofaces had to deal with edit warring and remind editors to use the talk page to gain consensus." If I'm removing content editors refuse to discuss, no one can claim consensus on those removed edits, and no one should be punished for following ONUS policy. Usually I would make small edits so the edit summaries explained the specific issues in the new edits I was disputing rather than blanket reverts, easily discussed on the talk page, etc. so there was no excuse to ignore them.[4][5][6][7][8][9] This one is one SV brought up a lot, but it was an edit the failed WP:V in that it didn't specifically deal with insects (only invertebrates in the sourced statement), yet it was edit warred all those times without response.
Editors basically ignored ONUS policy with blatant WP:Stonewalling behavior by blanket reverting all those edits I listed at once with dismissive edit summaries:
- March 4 FeydHuxtable:
revert unconstructive edit
- March 6 FeydHuxtable:
restore main stream science version, per talk
- March 11 Andrew Davidson:
Re citizen science, rv, &c.
- March 13 FeydHuxtable:
revert unconstructive edits...
- March 24 SlimVirgin:
rv; please gain consensus for these changes
- March 26 Andrew Davidson:
...ce, rv, &c.
- March 27 FeydHuxtable:
restore the more NPOV stable version per clear concensus on talk, while trying to retain the good edits of Gandydancer & King
- April 1 Andrew Davidson:
add new 130 year study, restore sourced content, &c.
Sometimes I did undo the entire edit trying to prevent editors trying to horse in huge swathes of text without consensus, but I usually tried to stick to those smaller edit summaries above pointing out the specific problems. In every case, I had already reminded editors to follow WP:ONUS and gain consensus for the edits they wanted, but they reverted back in dismissively like above anyways refusing to engage on talk.
An example is this talk section (and full section so far). After still running into issues with editors not addressing content and just reverting it back in, I brought it up at the talk page for the March 13 edit. No responses until March 24 when SlimVirgin joined in doing the same kind of blanket edit warring before I specifically pinged them despite their complaints here about those very actions they partook in disrupting the topic. I didn’t get any responses from others until March 26, two weeks after the most recent reverts. In talk discussion to date, not a single editor has tried to even discuss the specific edits buried in those blanket reverts despite me repeatedly asking them to do so. When I finally got a response from another editor they indicated they were only doing their mass reverts of me just to include two studies, and still wouldn’t comment on all the other things they reverted back in.[10] Then there's more non-answers like there's been plenty of response
while still avoiding the specific content.[11] In short, there was nothing on the talk page to even come close to beginning to form any sort of consensus, and I was left following WP:ONUS policy since editors made it clear they weren't going to specifically address the edits despite the blanket reverts.
I asked quite a bit for help at AE, etc. with this kind of blanket revert mentality editors have adopted in the topic, but it's just been left alone to make things more toxic in the subject and difficult to get any consensus-building done because of it. I don't think AN3 is really suited for trying to address all that behavior with all editors that resulted in way too many reverts with me trying to handle that mostly alone (in article edits, but others were on the talk page), so my only request in that regard is for more admins to patrol the topic to keep the kind of stuff I've been having to deal with tamped down when editors blanket revert.
On SV's list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Just additional comments on the large list where it makes it look like I'm blanket reverting due to the large amount of edit warred content I tried to handle and intermittent edits: March 4-11: The new page has been created as a WP:POVFORK to circumvent consensus over at Insect, so I restored to the consensus text from there reminding edits to gain consensus for the new edits.
March 13: Article development was moving ahead a bit, but these were removing the previous primary study problems that still had to be hashed out on the talk page. March 24-31: First two bullets are the same problem as March 4-11.
Pretty much all of the things in that list were either not addressed at all on the talk page despite my requests, or things that hadn't gained consensus, so I was just following ONUS policy and asking other editors blanket reverting to do the same. That obviously got to be too many reverts trying to deal with all the edit warring, but that list includes a lot of content that morphed over time too through normal editing. People edit warring over unverified content or requiring |
The numerous edits at Insect prior to the insect decline article where mostly due to edit warring by an IP and another editor on the primary study and blanket reverting in a bunch of stuff without really addressing specifics on the talk page. Multiple editors were opposed to those changes on the talk page, and the page was protected for awhile due to the content being edit warred in and related soapboxing rather than trying to gain consensus. I suggest reading my edit summaries in those actual diffs[15][16] SlimVirgin references as they basically laying out that the editors needed to use the talk page and gain consensus on something rather than mass reverting everything in.
I intended this to be a one-time response to clarify the specifics of what content/talk discussion actually was being worked on, and while I can respond to further clarification related to edit warring if need be, we're already getting to the point it's way too much content to try to digest for AN3, and I don't really want to drag this out further either. I had already quit trying to remove the content directly after my edits prior to March 29, and was just following up on that last request on the talk page to make them one more time, so this filing was very tendentious with that in mind, much less the silliness of the edits being reinserted and not addressed.
Continuing problems with Slimvirgin
For background, I’ve had to deal with hounding by SlimVirgin due to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, etc. for years now. It got to the point I had to propose what morphed into the aspersions principle at the GMO/pesticide ArbCom case in part because of interactions with primarily two editors, one of them being SlimVirgin.[17] This business of them going after editors to win disputes rather than focusing on specific content has been a frequent problem too.[18] This filing gets to an extreme case of Slimvirgin directly violating that principle (the subject of insect decline has pesticides as a main cause) by trying to get an editor blocked through directly omitting details to make it look like my most recent edits that were specifically requested on the talk page were edit warring. If they hadn't filed this AN3, I would have been (and now am) working on what's going to now be lot of legwork in an RfC to try to deal with all the blanket reverted content rather than edit warring if someone reinserted the content again. Even with that going on, they used direct confusion through violating an ArbCom principle to try to sanction an editor. Being as this occurred at an admin board, it should probably be brought up here first since this is where it occurred even if it might be more in AE territory. I would like the continued attempts by Slimvirgin to still cast aspersions towards me to stop either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is so bizarre that I don't know how to respond. Pinging the admins who dealt with the issue, Lourdes and Doc James, and the editors mentioned above, FeydHuxtable and Andrew Davidson. Suffice to say I had nothing to do with the GMO case or the aspersions principle. Hounding him for years? I've had very little to do with Kingofaces; in fact I usually try to stay away from him. The 2014 AN/I he links to above was my offering advice to him and EllenCT (during his attempt to have her topic banned) to open a COIN if they wanted to discuss whether he had a COI, rather than accuse him of it elsewhere. I offer that advice to everyone.
- As for this AN3 report, Kingofaces describes it as me violating ASPERSIONS "by trying to get an editor blocked through directly omitting details to make it look like [his] most recent edits that were specifically requested on the talk page were edit warring". That's a serious allegation offered with no evidence. No relevant details were omitted; he wasn't asked to make those edits; he was interpreting WP:ONUS to mean that he personally had to approve all edits; and he kept on reverting. He reverted so much that I decided to report it. End of story. SarahSV (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Bizzare" is just the word for it unfortunately. I've gotten to know King quite well over the last few months, and have spent several hours writing long diff rich responses to his half truths and mis-representations. At this point I'm starting to think responding in the normal collegial manner is a waste of time. On the subject of bug decline, King doesn't seem to agree with anything that conflicts with his pre-conceptions, no matter how well balanced and well sourced ones arguments. As King's bug decline related AE's show, few if anyone takes his wall of text posts seriously. It's a shame; a review of his contribs suggest that on several other topics, he comes across as a highly intelligent and knowledgeable academic, who makes lots of good and helpful comments. I'm hoping the bug decline issue might be settled by RfC soon, so there can be an end to this time wasting nonsense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been watching this, and I think that there is some amount of blame on both "sides". I had advised KofA that he was doing too much reverting and he needed to dial it back, and he disregarded what I said. I also think that he is wrong about WP:ONUS; there is, at this point, about the same amount of onus and need for discussion on the part of all of the editors there. On the other hand, there was no mention in the original AN3 filing that KofA had previously reached out to SV at her talk page. And it is simply false to claim that KofA was reverting "against consensus". In reality, other editors at the article talk page had expressed agreement with some of KofA's arguments, something that was absent from the AN3 filing, and I think that a case can be made that there was no clear consensus going either way. In any case, I think that this is a complex content dispute that cannot be properly dealt with at AN3. I see that Doc James set a requirement of a content RfC as a condition of unblocking, and I think that's a good idea. Where editors at the page are disputing over which sources to cite, another good option might be to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved in this issue, but popped over here when I noticed that KofA was flagged as a blocked user (my prefs mark blocked users in article histories and such). Looking at the above, I have to say that this style of reverting and personally attacking people in very aggressive ways is his classic tactic. He is particularly aggressive when it comes to his admitted area of academic interest -- insects -- but this is his style in general. I won't go into the nuances of my own experiences dealing with this editor, but given that he is now going after a longstanding and highly respected editor who is anything but an edit-warrior, suffice it to say this is not simply a matter of "both sides" being equally at fault when KofA is involved; it's his regular style to take a sledgehammer to swat a fly. He needs to stay blocked for a good long while in order to see what consensus on these articles develops absent his highly toxic style of interaction. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: He was unblocked around 20 hours ago. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically each side should prepare a "prefered version". Once those are ready they can be presented side by side and discussed. The wider community can than weight in on the merits of each as the starting point for further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regular contributors are attempting to build a 'preferred version' in main space, with citations instead of !votes, the usual practice. The solution would be for King to work in draft space on his preferred version. cygnis insignis 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically each side should prepare a "prefered version". Once those are ready they can be presented side by side and discussed. The wider community can than weight in on the merits of each as the starting point for further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: He was unblocked around 20 hours ago. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved in this issue, but popped over here when I noticed that KofA was flagged as a blocked user (my prefs mark blocked users in article histories and such). Looking at the above, I have to say that this style of reverting and personally attacking people in very aggressive ways is his classic tactic. He is particularly aggressive when it comes to his admitted area of academic interest -- insects -- but this is his style in general. I won't go into the nuances of my own experiences dealing with this editor, but given that he is now going after a longstanding and highly respected editor who is anything but an edit-warrior, suffice it to say this is not simply a matter of "both sides" being equally at fault when KofA is involved; it's his regular style to take a sledgehammer to swat a fly. He needs to stay blocked for a good long while in order to see what consensus on these articles develops absent his highly toxic style of interaction. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been watching this, and I think that there is some amount of blame on both "sides". I had advised KofA that he was doing too much reverting and he needed to dial it back, and he disregarded what I said. I also think that he is wrong about WP:ONUS; there is, at this point, about the same amount of onus and need for discussion on the part of all of the editors there. On the other hand, there was no mention in the original AN3 filing that KofA had previously reached out to SV at her talk page. And it is simply false to claim that KofA was reverting "against consensus". In reality, other editors at the article talk page had expressed agreement with some of KofA's arguments, something that was absent from the AN3 filing, and I think that a case can be made that there was no clear consensus going either way. In any case, I think that this is a complex content dispute that cannot be properly dealt with at AN3. I see that Doc James set a requirement of a content RfC as a condition of unblocking, and I think that's a good idea. Where editors at the page are disputing over which sources to cite, another good option might be to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- comment: I read the talk page, then read it again after following the edits. The user recently introduced themself to me, in defence of another user [which is fine], it did not go well and it is worth mentioning that is what piqued my interest in this (a possible conflict of interest). In my view, the structure of the user's contributions on that talk page closely aligns with denialism, eg. the same strategies employed for 'lead in motor fuel' and refined ever since. The terms and phrases are those used in scientific evaluation of other works from a conservative position, but in service of a reactionary or coi motivation. The most part of discussion points are off-the-cuff responses with the grotesque use of links to policy and guidelines, as if to pre-empt their being notified of the obvious contravention of them, and rounds of circular reference to 'we [King~] have already established cannot be done. The contributions have greatly disrupted the article development, the user is not there to improve it and seems to have lost sight of what 'we' actually do here. It's not bizarre to me, it is sad or a parody gone wrong, or a consequence of living during an extinction event. I do, of course, want the apologists to be right, this is all overstated. cygnis insignis 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This was a very clear case of one editor attempting to OWN an article someone else had created, and trying to do that via serial reverting, despite being asked at least twice to revert himself. He regularly distorts policy, misrepresents editors, and weaponizes WP:ASPERSIONS, while often violating it himself, as he did above. I've been hounding him for years? It's laughable. I've stayed away from numerous articles and discussions because I'd prefer not to interact with him. He reached out to me on my talk page? He gave me a DS alert. Here's the discussion, and it's more of the same misrepresentation. Others are reverting; he is not. When he does it, it's called something else. I reverted once at that article, and he accused me of edit warring. He reverted seven times, but that's okay. No one should defend the distortions in his post above. Every time he's defended, he thinks it's okay to behave like this the next time. SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- A very clear case of edit warring, or there is no such thing. And tacit endorsement is not helping anybody, especially the user. cygnis insignis 19:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This was a very clear case of one editor attempting to OWN an article someone else had created, and trying to do that via serial reverting, despite being asked at least twice to revert himself. He regularly distorts policy, misrepresents editors, and weaponizes WP:ASPERSIONS, while often violating it himself, as he did above. I've been hounding him for years? It's laughable. I've stayed away from numerous articles and discussions because I'd prefer not to interact with him. He reached out to me on my talk page? He gave me a DS alert. Here's the discussion, and it's more of the same misrepresentation. Others are reverting; he is not. When he does it, it's called something else. I reverted once at that article, and he accused me of edit warring. He reverted seven times, but that's okay. No one should defend the distortions in his post above. Every time he's defended, he thinks it's okay to behave like this the next time. SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slimvirgin, I specifically linked the diff and quoted when I was asked to make those edits. That you're still specifically ignoring it is why it is being brought up here for directly trying to misrepresent me at this filing as that is a very serious offense for blatantly violating WP:NPA, especially in this topic where you've had to be cautioned about misrepresenting editors. Every time I have been citing ONUS, it has not been that edits needed my approval, but that you and others actually needed to discuss the specific edits on the talk page, which you largely refused to do continuing to add those things in (with responses pretty much being nope, you gain consensus instead) despite my attempts at engagement. You're already aware of that from our discussion on your talk page, so your comment is concerning. I was following through on that policy when I made actual additions where the onus was on me too, asking what issues were arising with my edits, etc.
- As for the ANI, you were not just "giving advice". That's background that shouldn't need to be rehashed at AN3, but you were frequently hounding myself and other editors about having a COI and casting aspersions about that. I can pull up more diffs on that if need be, but the point is that I specifically proposed the aspersions principle in response to your behavior, and the other main editor was banned from that too. You were desyopped once awhile ago for abusing the administrative process[19], a string of ANIs where you've been cautioned for still pursuing this behavior,and now we're left with this loose end of you directly misprepresenting editors to file this. I already clarified what I actually was doing in my edits and where I got into trouble in the context of issues in the entire topic, so I wouldn't be posting here anymore if that was all that was left. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- Here it is again! "especially in this topic where you've had to be cautioned about misrepresenting editors"; "frequently hounding myself and other editors"; "I specifically proposed the aspersions principle in response to your behavior". This is appalling! Please provide evidence for each of these three points. SarahSV (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
User:2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B reported by User:Dusti (Result: Already semied)
- Page
- WBEY-FM ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) to 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated station profile with updated and accurate information"
- 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated site"
- 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Message re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
- 04:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
- 04:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on WBEY-FM. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I would actually be in violation of 3RR if I reverted them again. They're adding promotional information into the page and not adhering to WP:ADVERT or WP:CITE. Perhaps a semi-protect would be sufficient? Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unrelated 3RR lurker here; IP 2600:1003:b119:a317:6ce6:bba7:58b4:1a7 also appears to be involved. Same edits. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Oshwah. Another approach would have been to block this IP as well as Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B119:A317:6CE6:BBA7:58B4:1A7. But both IPs seem to be directed to this one article, so semiprotection does the job. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Lamberd reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Protected)
Page: Uchar-hadji ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lamberd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User repeatedly since January removes information with sources and also changes text against sources — 1, 2, 3. User was invited to talk page to explain his vandal actions and reminded about edits' vandal nature reminder 1 and [reminder 2] and reminder 3 on his talk page with links to rules, however he preferred to continue vandalism 4.
Comments:
and yet he continues with no explanation, talk page or whatever - diff link--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- and yet again — vandal edit, by strange admin action it was even protected, though admins have to protect consented on pre-war edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
turns out the user makes the same warring practical in another article here. Oshwah FYI--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- one more destructive edit here--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Asks:
Oshwah your actions are incorrect. you protected vandal version which was not explained once. according to Wikipedia rules I have the right to stop vandalism, however I didn't overstepped 3-reversion rules and made many requests on the talk page of the article in question, here, on vandal's talk page and during reversions. you should correct your actions.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus, hi, could you please pay attention? I think because a few understand the topic, admin made incorrect protection keeping vandal edits, which is utterly strange.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Arsenekoumyk! I apologize for the delay responding to your inquiries here. I had a few urgent Wikipedia matters come up that I needed to resolve immediately, and they required my full attention. Please see the response I left for you here on my user talk page. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond there and I'll be happy to assist you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- hey, Oshwah, a little above there are links to me pinging him in various forms, he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Arsenekoumyk - Ugh, I apologize... I'm an boneheaded idiot. You already provided them and they're right in front of my face... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oshwah unnecessary self-criticism :) hard to pay attention to everything all the time--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Arsenekoumyk - HA! I appreciate that. :-) Between reverting vandalism, taking action against disruptive editors and sock puppets, assisting new users and those who need my assistance, processing reports at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, and other noticeboards (as well as making sure that those backlogs are clear), and my other daily tasks - my ability to keep track of everything and remember what users are talking about can fall short at times... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Sorry, I'm normally on top of this noticeboard but I've been busy writing Bollocks to Brexit and ranting about RfA as usual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 - There's absolutely no need to apologize. There is no deadline, and you were busy focusing and working on important things. It happens... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Sorry, I'm normally on top of this noticeboard but I've been busy writing Bollocks to Brexit and ranting about RfA as usual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Arsenekoumyk - HA! I appreciate that. :-) Between reverting vandalism, taking action against disruptive editors and sock puppets, assisting new users and those who need my assistance, processing reports at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, and other noticeboards (as well as making sure that those backlogs are clear), and my other daily tasks - my ability to keep track of everything and remember what users are talking about can fall short at times... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oshwah unnecessary self-criticism :) hard to pay attention to everything all the time--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Arsenekoumyk - Ugh, I apologize... I'm an boneheaded idiot. You already provided them and they're right in front of my face... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- hey, Oshwah, a little above there are links to me pinging him in various forms, he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
uchar haji chechen 1 23 4 5 Lamberd (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Lamberd 1) there is talk page for these. 2) some sources were given about your version, deleting everything and deneutralizing article isn't fit for wiki. 3) you started warring. 4) chechen online non-scientific websites aren't eligible as sources. i could write 5 articles like that.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- also what's the reason of giving 2 sources copied as 5 here? is it for mass effect for the case no one checks?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Result: Three days of EC protection by User:Oshwah. The present article seems garbled, and I wonder if a better job could be done. I notice that the Russian article at ru:Учар-Хаджи is much longer and more detailed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston vandalism issue isn't attended to. the request isn't about warring only, but warring with vandalism. basically the user succeeds in sabotaging the article, sources say one thing, vandal just changed pieces of text contradicting sources, but leaving the sources at place. at least pre-war version should be reverted to--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston excuses, I've not seen measures were applied to the user in question. however, vandal version is still intact though--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arsenekoumyk: It looks like you already reverted what you consider to be the bad edits on 4 April. If you still think that something is wrong you should explain your concerns at Talk:Uchar-hadji. By coincidence, I had blocked User:Lamberd during this period due to an edit war at Chechens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston I'm done explaining it for now, did it around 5 times on different pages. hope he comes to talk page.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Arsenekoumyk: It looks like you already reverted what you consider to be the bad edits on 4 April. If you still think that something is wrong you should explain your concerns at Talk:Uchar-hadji. By coincidence, I had blocked User:Lamberd during this period due to an edit war at Chechens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Fineartsme reported by User:JarrahTree (Result: Page protected )
Page: Sukarno ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fineartsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User add undocumented OR to the article Sukarno, and despite being offered information about 3RR - and being warned about adding unsubstantiated material about Sukarno, insists the warner is the vandal, and replies with shouting and reverse claims. JarrahTree 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Also - continues into IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.177.148.71 with exactly the same edit summary JarrahTree 01:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Page protected Semi-protected by Oshwah for 24 hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Bobby Beausoleil ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnpie1789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation"
Comments:
There is a longstanding dispute over the content of this article - a WP:BLP - and, in particular, the opening sentence. Beausoleil is a convicted and incarcerated murderer (one of the Manson Family), who has interests in music and art. Mnpie1789 has a keen interest in this article, and since 2016 has consistently sought to paint Beausoleil in the best possible light, by emphasising his artistic endeavours and minimising the fact that he is a convicted murderer. The issue has been discussed on the article talk page, and at WP:BLP/N here. Mnpie1789 has changed some of their earlier edits (for instance to remove direct references to court transcripts) but has edit-warred over others, notably the opening sentence of the article. Editors including BarrelProof, Zaereth, HammerFilmFan, LindsayH, DeXXus, and myself, have all taken the view that the opening sentence should indicate that his notability is as a convicted murderer, not as a musician/artist as Mnpie1789 would have it. However, Mnpie1789 continues to edit-war over the opening sentence, despite warnings and reverts by multiple editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am very disappointed to see this report ~ not for Ghmyrtle's action, but for the necessity of it. In a recent ANI report, i understood Mnpie1789 to be willing to work with the community to ensure that consensus was reached; it does not appear that he is willing to abide by community standards, consensus, and policy in trying to whitewash his favourite (by edit count of some two to one Bobby Beausoleil vs. every other topic) subject. I regret to say, this needs action. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Mnpie1789 seems very determined to fight against a clear consensus expressed by large number of editors, despite extensive attempts to resolve the matter in discussions on talk pages and noticeboards. The other editors have extensively and politely explained their views and referenced relevant guidelines. I am glad to see that Mnpie1789 has engaged actively in the discussions rather that just edit warring. There has also been some improvement of sourcing in the article that Mnpie1789 has contributed to. But Mnpie1789 seems determined to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to prevail on two aspects of the article by persistent edit warring. This shouldn't be allowed to continue indefinitely. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Unlike many threads on this noticeboard that I process, I have read the article and know about the subject because of its tenuous relationship with all things Led Zeppelin, though I don't believe I have directly edited Beausoleil's article which means I don't think I'm involved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
User:ImaArianator reported by User:Aoi (Result: Page protected )
- Page
- Sweetener (album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ImaArianator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890798909 by Aoi (talk) See the source"
- 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890781661 by Calebh12 (talk) unless the source calls it a trap album then it can stay"
- 13:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890771151 by Calebh12 (talk) "Sets her sights on conquering trap" doesn't make it a trap album"
- 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890752803 by Aoi (talk) Pls, read the source; it calls it a pop-R&B crossover album and the trap review only states that Ari proves that trap is the new pop and that she uses the Southern hip hop genre on some songs on the album"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Page protected You know something, when I get a report that has nothing against the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" I feel like closing the report as no action or WP:BOOMERANGing the filer. Anyway, full-protected for three days - you all need to go to the talk page. I could block ImaArianator, but then I'd have to block Aoi and Calebh12 for edit-warring too. That's far too many blocked editors, and since nobody else is actively editing the article, protection is the answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've blocked ImaArianator as a sock and changed the protection to semi.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Thenabster126 reported by User:Lamberd (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Chechens ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thenabster126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Edit warring. Persecution 1 2
Lamberd (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned I warned both users, but then I got distracted. This has been going on for close to a month without any evidence of discussion on the article talk page. I'm going to advise User:Thenabster126 that they need to get consensus for their changes on the article talk page, or they will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours – Long running war on whether Chechnya is in Eastern Europe. Lamberd says yes but Thenabster126 says no. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Isold1 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Spindle Magazine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Isold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'm a big fan of assuming good faith and not treating this place as "request for banhammers", but somebody reverting XLinkBot and contributing prose like "Spindle Network is a global network of creatives: writers, photographers, stylists, fashion designers, illustrators, artists, musicians, producers and models. Developed from Spindle Magazine’s core readership, its network includes some of the globes most talented visionaries of popular youth culture and the rising stars of tomorrow." needs a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)
- Page
- Greeks in Albania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891027431 by Khirurg (talk)"
- 02:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891019162 by ST47 (talk)"
- 02:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890997931 by Khirurg (talk) For a wikipedia article on the Greek minority in Albania, more reliable estimates should be included in the infobox as well as in the introductory text."
- 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890995634 by ST47 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Information was inaccurate. Numbers were inaccurate."
- 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Adding the number in percentage, as to make the numbers easier to understand."
- 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Numbers were inaccurate and exaggerated. Most estimations place the number of ethnic groups in Albania on less than 100,000."
- 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Information inaccurate/ false."
- 21:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Adding the official number of ethnic greeks residing in Albania according to the latest official population census (2011). This is important information."
- 21:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Making the information more accurate."
- 21:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "We already have the information below. There is no need to write the same information two times."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit-warring SPA created on 4 April, with the single-purpose to edit-war on the population numbers on Greeks in Albania. Ceaseless, rapid-fire edit-warring and POV-pushing. Will not stop. Dr. K. 05:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Geeez. I even warned him again after his 4th revert, because I figured I was too closely involved at this point to block/protect. This seems like the only thing this user is interested in doing, we had a brief conversation on my talk page after I tried to develop a common ground but he's gone silent and reverted twice more. ST47 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Ban kavalir reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)
- First report
- Page
- Triune Kingdom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 00:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC) to 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- 00:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891003218 by Havsjö (talk) User uses terms not mentioned in both sources (one relevant other unreliable). User marks contemporary as well as relevant sources as Unreliable but uses sources with proven errors, user deleted parts of cited text (Frankopan)"
- 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "added first coat of arms with the unified representation of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia"
- 00:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 01:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ minor edit"
- 02:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added period sections, new text with new sources. Added Austro-Slavism"
- 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "minor edit of sections"
- 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Added linguistic and historic source. The article should focus more on the terms and usage of the term Triune Kingdom, rather then history (since articles on the Triune Kingdom in periods of 1848-1867 and 1868-1918 all ready exist)"
- 00:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted same reason. Two sources which don't correlate with terms used and cited by the user. Second source shows errors false dates and statements (example Party of rights is cited as successor of the Illyrian movement, which all scientific researchers dispute), probably due to lack of any sources cited in the book itself"
- 23:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890999335 by Havsjö (talk) First source which you fabricated (which is a scientific article) doesn't mention Nationalist, the second which is not relevant due to errors such as Illyrian movement being in 1848 but was banned and ended in 1843. Don't mention Illyrians as nationalists. Both mention that nationalism started in 1861 with two movements. Also since the founder of Croatian Nationalism, Starčević started in 1861"
- 23:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted text (SECOND FABRICATION), user claims the term Croatian Nationalist in 1848 is cited, which is not present in the text. The text shows that the first Nationalist movements started in 1861. Also the cited source is irrelevant due to errors. For example it states that the Illyrian movement existed in 1848, while in 1843 it was banned and its founders ended the project (most notably Gaj)."
- 23:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User found FABRICATING second source, the Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Two-Volume Set, p-105 doesn't mention Illyrian movement as nationalist (also it ended in 1843 prior to the revolutions of 1848)"
- 23:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User FABRICATED ANOTHER source! In the Encyclopedia of Nationalism p-105 it doesn't mention Nationalists in 1848, but Starčević in 1861. User continues to fabricate text and sources"
- 23:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "minor Triune Kingdom"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User FABRICATED segments of the text using sources which say different. The User has been cited for fabrication in the TALK PAGE (to be more ironic the User fabricated Croatian Nationalists in the year 1848, when the founder of Croatian nationalism started in 1861)"
- 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Added crown union of Croatia and Hungary 1868-1918, since in the period of 1848-1868 it was not part of the crown union"
- 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added contemporary sources for usage in 1527! Deleted FABRICATED! text by user Havsjö (text sourced, but the sources don't correlate with the text), added terms and text from the mentioned sources"
- 22:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890992414 by Havsjö (talk) reverted user deleted relevant sources, FABRICATED! sourced text which the sources did not confirm resulting in bias text"
- 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted, user FABRICATED! parts of the text (added sourced terms which the sources do not mention), the user deleted relevant sources to make the text bias (once again). Removed the first mention from 1527 and Bojničić surce"
- 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ deleted Croatian nationalists since the source Korunić (p 12-13) doesn't mention them nor such term, added correct term from the source (Delegates of the Sabor and unification). No other text changed"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890983793 by Havsjö (talk) Reverted since user deleted sourced text (from two editors). No sources or text were deleted by myself, reverted part of the sourced text which the user deleted to make the article bias (once again Bojničić and 1527 first mention and usage by the Habsburgs see EDIT HISTORY)"
- 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Deleted text with Croatian nationalist since the source it states, doesn't mention them!!! Added correct text from the same source (Peić)"
- 21:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added first usage, earlier deleted by user which is sourced (Bojničić)"
- 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890982237 by Havsjö (talk) User deleted and reverted two editors texts to make the article bias. Didn't add a single source and deleted sourced materials which have the first mention of the usage to make the article more bias (user has done it in several similar articles but not contributed to them)"
- 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890981670 by Havsjö (talk) Reverted text possible edit war by user Havsjö, who deleted relevant sources"
- 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to the last edit done by Jebcubed, User Havsjö deleted text with sources to make the article more bias. Deleted Bojničić source (PS since he doesn't know Croatian history, he is one of the main heraldists of the KuK monarchy, as well as director of the Royal Archives)"
- 20:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890974126 by Havsjö (talk) Please stop deleting sourced material for bias terms. User deleted crucial sources with first mentioned usage (...since 1527 with the Habsburgs started the implementation of the name Triune Kingdom ...)"
- 19:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User on purpose deleted sourced material. He deleted the first official usage of the name, disregarding dr. Ivan Bojničić pl. Kninski source"
- 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "The previous user deleted whole section of sourced texts. The text is returned. No edits on previous texts were added"
- 07:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added sources and text for usage in history"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit-warring on an epic scale and continuing personal attacks in edit-summaries, for which he got blocked on 16 March by EdJohnston. Dr. K. 05:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Second report
- Page
- Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890983109 by Havsjö (talk) reverted User deleted official flag (which is sourced) used in the period of the article (1680) and added flag which was used in different period (only during 1852), see TALK PAGE on 1848-1867 period"
- 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Symbols */ added gallery for symbols (coat of arms and flags used in the period of 1527-1848)"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890974397 by Havsjö (talk) The texts regarding the period of 1848-1867 are in a separate article with more sources, info and related material. The text you deleted is sourced and for this period. SEE TALK PAGE!"
- 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added correct flag (used from 17th century until 1848) with sources"
- 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
- 19:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890973309 by Havsjö (talk) Once again see TALK PAGE! User deletes sources disregards exsistance of other articles (1848-1867), disregards historic periods, disregards relevant sources"
- 19:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890972094 by Havsjö (talk) see Talk page and start conversation there. Also you have deleted new text, sources and coat of arms added"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 19:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890969668 by Havsjö (talk) Once again See TALK PAGE (1848 period in separate article) before edit war, reverted to previous state"
- 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added new coat of arms (official used from 1624-1848) with sources"
- 19:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890962627 by Havsjö (talk) See TALK PAGE (1848 period in separate article) before edit war, reverted to previous state"
- 17:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Once again see TALK PAGE before starting an edit war. Article reverted to correct last source. User deleted sourced material, added life span of other articles (1848-1867), deleted correct flag"
- 10:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "reverted to correct last source. User deleted sourced material, added life span of other articles (1848-1867), deleted correct flag, added unexisting flag start TALK PAGE"
- 07:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Correct flag added, correct dates until 1848 when the Triune Kingdom was proclaimed ending the CU with Hungary"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
And another article. What can I say? I simply haven't seen this before. Dr. K. 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 09:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Havsjö reported by User:Havsjö (Result: Warning)
I have have been embroiled in a (frankly embarrassing) massive edit-war on the Triune Kingdom page. I was recommended by a third user I thought was an admin to notify about it here and pledge not to repeat such actions again. I will gladly receive a (hopefully temporary) block. But I will also link to this talk page of this third person here, in hope that someone third-party (with expertise or authority) will take a look at what has been written here and take some kind of stance or "closer look" at what has been going on several pages. User_talk:Dr.K.#Reports_of_edit_wars_and_fabricating_texts_to_make_them_more_bias --Havsjö (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this editor has responded to my advice, and since he has pledged not to edit-war further, a block of his account at this stage would be punitive, rather than preventative. Also, there is no edit of his remaining at any of the articles in dispute. All disputed articles have been reverted to versions by Ban kavalir. Ben kavalir, however, does not appear to have followed my advice to self-revert. Dr. K. 09:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Warned. Self-reporting is refreshing. El_C 09:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: 24 hours, both)
Page: Audi R8 (Type 4S) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U1Quattro (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Comments:
I been having problems with U1Quattro. They are still being stubborn when it comes to dispute with a edit. I even told them to take it to the talkpage and not make anymore edits until we reach a consensus but they refuse to corporate and I don't want to get myself into another edit wars. I stated that the article did not contain a front view picture of a production pre-facelift (one that isn't a limited edition such as the RWS or the Decennium). It not a big concern that one picture is used both on the main infobox of the model and in it's respective generation article.
Like the last talkpage discussion, they inserted images that originally wasn't part of the discussion to try and make my reason for reverting useless. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This report is uncalled for because such an image was already there, yet this user decided to revert the edits for no reason even after an image was added.U1 quattro TALK 18:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I added my reason, the limited edition models and the normal production model should be separate things. The edit which you reverted cater to that but you insist to cut corners and treat special/limited edition as a standard production model which I disagree with as well as indirectly taunting me because of the chance I could get blocked if I engage your edit warring. You also removed my AN3 notice template shortly after posting it. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: That was an old template. Plus I had already told you about the Audi R8 Spyder which had the photo taken from the front and that is not a limited edition or a special model but a regular production model. I also had added the photo of the standard R8 coupé as well so this report is uncalled for as I had added the photo which you had claimed was there even if it was.U1 quattro TALK 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Your behaviour has been disruptive as well as you start a talk page discussion after reverting the edits which I find rude and disruptive. You also decide to report me every now and then on an administrator notice board when you know that the matter is solvable through a proper talk page discussion and by presenting valid points which I find unprofessional and harmful for my credibility.U1 quattro TALK 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: A talk page discussion is started without reverting the edits and not after reverting it. I think you need to read about how a talk page discussion works.U1 quattro TALK 19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page". Which is the exact scenario we are in. It was clear that we were in a dispute and if we continue reverting it will start another edit war so I attempt to discuss in it talk page which you didn't corporate properly. --Vauxford (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Which you have clearly avoided and reverted my edit before starting a talk page discussion even when a consensus could easily have been achieved in a talk page discussion.U1 quattro TALK 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I said what I have to say and attempted to explain it clear as I can, but this is now just rallying back and fourth since you are just trying to turn the guns around toward me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Both editors were recently excused with no block here after a multi-multi-revert violation on 1 April, about the choice of image in a car article. Since they don't appear to be either able or willing to follow WP:Dispute resolution, I recommend that both editors be blocked this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I said what I have to say and attempted to explain it clear as I can, but this is now just rallying back and fourth since you are just trying to turn the guns around toward me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston But I didn't edit warring this time. I even made a talkpage discussion to resolve the dispute before I violated the 3RR! I stated it as clear as I can above. I don't understand, what I'm doing wrong? Please read carefully of what I stated if you are planning of blocking us. --Vauxford (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)