Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinitely for now)

Page: Trisha Krishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
2. 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

• Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

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

1. [4]

1. [5] - putting fake sources/infomation [6]
2. [7] - putting fake sources/infomation [8]
3. [9] - putting fake sources/infomation [10]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [11]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few [12] [13] [14]. The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove [15] and a recent one for edit-warring from Krimuk2.0. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

TheHappiestEditor has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with 19Arham here here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Apparently, they do not want to respond here, but would very much continue with their POV [16] [17]. Also note removal of sources here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheHappiestEditor and I spoke on my Talk page where they said the following: "The information regarding Wamiqa Gabbi has been removed multiple times despite being supported by reliable sources, such as [1]. This violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Could we discuss this further to reach a consensus?" 19Arham (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The removal of content isn't a violation of the verifiability policy; restoring content against WP:ONUS or WP:BURDEN is. Dealing with other editors' concerns about one's editing isn't optional if the editing continues, and TheHappiestEditor had the chance to respond here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hariprasad Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.84.130.238 (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 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262480024 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
   2. 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia [for example-Pandit Shivkumar Sharma [ https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shivkumar_Sharma ]"
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23]
8. [24]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [25]
2. [26]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about WP:NCIN and MOS:HON in edit summaries and warnings Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a level 4 warning, but was asked to report it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article Shivkumar Sharma (diff). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
2. 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
3. 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
4. 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
5. 18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Infinty 0 reported by User:Amigao (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Automotive industry in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Infinty 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Automotive_industry_in_China#EU_technology_transfer_demand

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
This user continued to revert even after a 3RR warning was provided on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and ad hominem attacks. - Amigao (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, the user @Amigao made a substantial change to the article without explanation or consensus (as can be clearly seen from the article edit history) before any useful discussion took place. He had always emphasized that edits should be made based on discussion, but his actions were exactly the opposite. If someone is instigating an edit war, I think it is clear which side started it first. Infinty 0 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All my edit explanations are in the relevant WP:ES. If any WP:ES is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - Amigao (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And ad hominem attacks? This is a very serious accusation, and I do hope you have enough evidence to support it, otherwise it is just malicious prosecution and frame-up. All our communications and opinion exchange is clearly visible on the talk page and edit history. Infinty 0 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:وقت الصلاة reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: وقت الصلاة (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33] [34]

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

Comments:

Bonus WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS; You may hate Turkish people.. If you Look the userpage of "HistoryofIran" you can clearly see she is obsessed with turkish people.. Also very high likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry, I'll file an SPI later just to be sure its not the former. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Also ECP protected (I edit-conflicted with Bbb23 here) I was going to block the editor concerned, but instead I have reverted their latest edits and ECPd the article; they can discuss their edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring when they are unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Big thanks to you both! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments: Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Add to the above the following personal attack by Remsense on the article's talk page: [44]. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Wikipedia.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a moderator on Wikipedia, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to take someone's actions in good faith when they lie, both straightforwardly and by omission, in their representation of said actions to others. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have Indiana on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. Remsense ‥ 论 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. MrJ567 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No violation Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so 3RR has not been violated. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's observation that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:72.134.38.53 reported by User:190.167.0.99 (Result: Refer to AN/I)

Page: Crunchyroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.134.38.53 (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. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 9

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments: The IP has repeatedly removed languages ​​within the infobox website on Crunchyroll's page explicitly citing that the streaming service only has 14 languages ​​available according to its official website; specifically it has English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi when in reality there are 20 the number of anime series and movies available in its complete catalog with audio original Japanese and with subtitles, only that Sony, the owner of this platform or Crunchyroll itself, have not officially made the announcement of the possibility of it expanding to more territories, more countries and more languages ​​without waiting for this to happen next. 190.167.0.99 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined This looks a little too complex for the scope of this noticeboard; I think AN/I would be better. But, since infoboxes are a contentious topic, I have put a notice to that effect on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Notwally (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: 1917 (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265942060 by Notwally (talk) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
2. 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265836072 by Notwally (talk) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
3. 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265821239 by Notwally (talk) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
4. 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film) "/* Country? */ r"

Comments:

There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.

MapReader (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. This was a tough one to call. I thought seriously about declining it as all the discussion has been civil and it seems everyone is not only acting in good faith but reciprocally assuming it of the other parties (well, there is as of now only one on one side). Had I decided to decline, I would have done so on the basis of the edit being reverted to being rather old ... we have no policy guidance on how old that edit has to be; sometimes people here have cited year-old edits as the basis of their complaint. But at the same time I would commend MapReader's attention to WP:WEAKSILENCE: "... a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent", contrary to what you suggest here.

The underlying problem is, as IN notes here, is that this dispute falls neatly into a gap that FILMCOUNTRY fails to address, an issue as noted best resolved at the policy level. In the meantime, though, policy shortcomings cannot be allowed to justify edit wars, and in the meantime I read LOCALCONSENSUS as, by implication, deferring to the decision made here on the talk page.

MapReader is acting in good faith when they point out the lack of clear guidance. All the same ... while they are correct again to note the deficiency of citing the 2020 discussion as a basis for consensus when the 2023 discussion exists, I read that 2023 discussion as, in the noted absence of clarity at the policy level, establishing a consensus for following FILMCOUNTRY and leaving the countries of production out of the lede entirely while noting them in the infobox. MapReader's good-faith skepticism about Lumiere's methodology notwithstanding, it does not give them the right to revert the current lede.

Since, as it turned out, I have previously partially blocked MapReader before for similar conduct, and there has been an intervening sitewide block, I am doing it again, this time for longer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, the lead was stable between 2020 and late summer this year, 2024, on the basis of the 2020 and 2023 discussions. It was the other editor - who appears to have contributed briefly to the 2020 discussion but under a different username - who intervened to make a change late this summer, without revisiting the talk page at all, and after I restored the status quo, has attempted to force this through today without discussion. While I realise I made one revert too many, his/her gaming 3RR to force through an edit that runs contrary to previous discussion, and citing a four year old comment as evidence of being willing to talk about it, was having a laugh, IMHO. MapReader (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Stormy160 reported by User:Talthiel (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2024 Wisconsin Senate election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stormy160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:
I have repeatedly tried to discuss it with the editor, posting a long response to each thing reverted in the article but to no avail, as the user read my response, disagreed, and then reverted back to their desired change, claiming I said something I did not. I have no idea hoe else to resolve this conflict because the table me and other editors built has had 0 issue until this one editor came in and started claiming issues existed with it (that don't exist by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talthiel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is edit-warring. PS - We should have a link to the consensus being mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This user will not engage at all. I gave examples of what I was talking about, only to be called “dense”. They clearly just want full control over the page, nobody is allowed to edit their previous work. So yes, I did try to explain the precedent. I engaged on the talk page to no avail, which of course the user did not mention in their report. Stormy160 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Thesanas reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )

Page: Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
2. 07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265915480 by CNMall41 (talk): WP:ONUS applies to those who adds contents. I only replaced with reliable sources. Please stop WP:EDITWAR here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pooja Hegde."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "/* GA article */"

Comments:

Additional warring is here and here. User erased previous warning from their talk page here and was warned numerous times about getting consensus on the talk page. Has been reverted by three different editors at this point but user still does not seem to get it. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored user:Charliehdb last edit [54]. What is the mistake in restoring other users edits? I am here to expand and make this article with reliable sources. Why are you removing my edits with reliable sources and making this article with unreliable sources? Thesanas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure Charliehdb is a WP:MEAT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me but I am not sure I would get much reception at SPI at this point with as many filings I have done recently on Indian film related UPE, SOCKS, and MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They obviously do not care about WP:ONUS and likely UPE based on the continued edit war. I will let them continue to bludgeon and just roll back once they are blocked. Not worth the stress of trying to clean up the page when they don't seem to want to work within a collaborative community. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Stevencocoboy reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

Page: United States men's national junior ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because WP:HOCKEY"
2. 05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
3. 05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
4. 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"

Comments:

Look at his person's talk page. They have been warned over and over and over. Just at US Figure Skating Template they must be 10x reverts. I didn't report that because he promised me on my talk page he would be better, but it hasn't stopped him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's because I don't know a consensus in WP:HOCKEY. I'm not American and my english is poor. I don't know we can't update a result and we need until the event was completed. Also I need using some times to translate what is talking about. After I translate it, I'm stopped edit in the page. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing... you have been warned of this many times on multiple subjects, and you've been editing here for 10 years now. I count that you have been warned 11x since September 2024... most of which you didn't answer on your talk page. In October you were told by an editor "Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges." On December 24 I told you to "Self-revert or I WILL report you, and you will get blocked" for 8 reverts of Template:U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The same day I told you "You are also dangerously close to being blocked for your edits at "U.S. Figure Skating Championships." Yesterday a third editor told you to stop vandalizing "United States men's national ice hockey team". You were told about edit warring and to read up on consensus by editors at WP:Hockey. And then again a warning for "United States men's national junior ice hockey team".

This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)