Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

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

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • WP:1RR violations may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

User:Mistery Spectre reported by User:Lvivske[edit]

Page: Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Member with ill-concealed conflict of interest, deletes the view of one of the parties, at the same time placing the other charges as established fact. My attempts to explain the principles of neutrality party were ignored for general remarks and accusations.

The problem is that the participant perceives the article as a kind of place "fight for justice", where you can edit in any way to remove if it is in his version of a lie, or make as a fact, if it believes it Mistery Spectre (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was restoring content you were blanking (re: disruptive editing on your part). Also, my edits are like...3 in 4 days? Hardly worth an edit warring report. Calling out "ill concealed conflict of interest" is pure bad faith on your part. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand you correctly, by some rules I am not allowed for any reason to remove your text, while you can without any arguments to delete my? Even if it is only the opinion of one of the parties and have already indicated within the text? Original. And now you suddenly disappeared, but there was a friend of yours, well, just open that provokes me to kickbacks, yes. Judging by the lack of arguments in fact, as I understand it, you have nothing to say? P.S Something I did not see in my text, charged with violating the rules of the three edit cancellation, only your edits war under false pretenses, yes. Mistery Spectre (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In general, someone adding material bears the burden of providing citation of reliable sources. Just because something has a good source does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, but someone wishing to remove well-sourced material has the burden of explaining why (with reference to some policy, guideline, or logic, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT). If reliable sources disagree on the facts, an effort should be made to describe various viewpoints and who they are accepted by.
The area of your dispute is under discretionary sanctions, so if someone seems to not be here for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia, you can seek a remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Rhoark (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem that the user can not understand why the opinion of one of the parties can not serve as a fact. I'm not even talking about trying to save his text for the text itself. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have good-faith difficulties understanding Wikipedia policy. I suggest you redirect your efforts to wiki projects in your native language. Rhoark (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Phieuxghazzieh reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: )[edit]

Page
WrestleMania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Phieuxghazzieh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644474646 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) now you're blatantly lying to drive your agenda. rv per sources once again"
  2. 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "wwe.com gives one main event for each, with the exception of wm8. rv per sources"
  3. 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644464241 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) lets just make up our own main events, shall we?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Main events */ new section"
  2. 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Main events */"
  3. 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Correct main events */"
Comments:

The user was warned not to revert the edits for a third time. Despite failing to heed the warning, the user was then given two further opportunities to revert the edits and avoid being reported. The user then attempted character assassination rather than revert the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RealDealBillMcNeal (the user who made the complaint about me) repeatedly introduced uncited WP:OR into the article. He has been blocked from the community four times, is on a final warning, routinely uses profane and aggressive edit summaries, and has been characterised by an administrator as someone with a "history of vandalism" who is "engaged in a long campaign to lightly troll everyone, just enough to have fun, but not so much that he gets blocked".[1] This would be his latest trollfest. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
So, in essence, the defence is "wah wah wah he started it". Bold move. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
More like, 'he violated WP:OR three times, then pointed to someone else as the problem'. Your glaring inability to admit to your wrongdoings, especially after all the blocks and warnings, is staggering. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Big fan of you continuously ignoring the fact that my findings are coming from WWE's own advertising and merchandise, ergo WP:OR is completely and utterly irrelevant. The deflective tactics are neverending. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well done. Rather than provide anything resembling citations, you Googled posters saved on random sites (high chance some of the findings were fan-made) and expect us to accept the main events you came up with. On top of that, you blatantly ignored the pre-existing cites and just added your own main events. WP:OR and WP:VNT patently failed. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Big fan of you blatantly not even checking those sources. Your protestations are wholly inaccurate, and therefore worthless. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You didn't provide any "sources". All we got was your word, based on the WP:OR you'd done. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
A tragic failure to utilise common sense by you here. If you're going to bang on about sources yet again, there are no sources for the last 17 WrestleMania's and yet you have neither removed that information or corrected it. Your failure to understand the policy you are citing is disgusting, and the pertinent part is mentioned in the second paragraph of the policy - "The prohibition against OR (original research) means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". WWE television, advertising posters and DVD covers are all official published sources for how their own company's scripted matches were promoted, and therefore an in-line citations isn't necessary, particularly for such a minor piece of information. (By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source) RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMON is exactly what I'm using. The final match for the last 17 WrestleManias is listed, and that's the main event unless said otherwise. The last contest on a wrestling, fighting or boxing card is, you know, the main event.
Given wrestling fans' penchant for creating their own promotional materials, Googling and using random sites as "sources" is extremely questionable. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Goalposts being moved yet again is it? You are aware that PPV's can have multiple main events, right? I mean, Fully Loaded back in the year 2000 was promoted as having three mainevents. Since then, obviously it has become the norm, particularly for WrestleMania, and is no longer such a rarity. WWE's weekly programming, official promotional material and DVD covers aren't fan made, therefore they're the actual source. You seem painfully unaware about literally every aspect you're arguing. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Keijhae reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: )[edit]

Page
List of military special forces units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Keijhae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Italy */Reverted edit by a troll"
  2. 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Israel */Reverted edits by Murry1975 (talk): THE REFFERENCES ARE RELIABLE SOURCES, AND IT'S A FACT. DO SOME RESEARCH.WP:BRD. (TW)"
  3. 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Japan */Fixed ref"
  4. 15:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Added Japan"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of military special forces units. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [2]
Comments:

Editor has added poorly sourced inforamtion and been reverted, not responded to talkpage and has been slighty uncivil in this es. Murry1975 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor has not respond directly to tp, he has tried to address the sources but on a quick view today has not added RSs (blog added in one case). Admin EdJohnston yesterday request they stop until consensus is reached, they have not. Also a note on the page, <!-- DO NOT ADD ANY SF UNITS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALSO ADDED A RELIABLE SOURCE -->, was placed there for this very reason. I will not be around until some stage tomorrow evening GMT for further comment. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingchamar reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: text added by Kingchamar first edit 31 December 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 31 December 2014 2nd edit
  2. 11 January 2015
  3. 17 January 2015
  4. 24 January 2015
  5. 28 January 2015
  6. 29 January 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:

Slow burn edit-warring that is starting to speed up. SPA repeatedly adds the same text to an Indian caste article over the last month despite being reverted by 4 different users. The text is unsourced or poorly sourced. SPA does not engage except to make statements on his talk page to say that he knows the information is true because he is a Chamar and he got it from his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talkcontribs)

He is still edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Revert no. 7. Could an admin please take a look at this. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Greeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikolaserbboy1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: various

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Amortias#Nikolaserbboy1995 and [13]

Comments:
Rapid-fire revert-warring against several users over poorly-sourced population figures. Was blocked only recently for apparently similar bout of revert-warring over Vienna. Responses on talk seem to indicate serious WP:COMPETENCE issue [14]. Fut.Perf. 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – 5 days. Editor was blocked 48 hours in early January due to a similar issue. People have made efforts to discuss with him but it doesn't do any good. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:77.49.169.33 reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: The River (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.49.169.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15] (previous IP)
  2. [16] (previous IP)
  3. [17]
  4. [18]
  5. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
And on what is presumably his previous talk page: [22]

Comments:
IP editor, who's probably the same editor as before, insists on classifying this party as 'centre to centre-left' despite consensus to the contrary. Not a 3RR breach. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The party belongs to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats which is by definition centre-left. There are also many sources citing the party as centre-left. The party is centrist to centre-left. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is consensus -- which might've changed if you'd been willing to argue the merits of the classification. If you revert yourself and post on the article's talk page, I'll withdraw my report. Alakzi (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus by me. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus isnt the agreement of everyone its the agreed on opinion after discussion.See WP:CONSENSUS Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus among two or three users? So what? There are VERY strong arguments against that "consensus". And there are many sources supporting these arguments. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not 'two or three'; it's exactly three. There are VERY strong arguments against that "consensus". Which you're very welcome to expand on at the article's talk page. If they're indeed 'very strong', it shouldn't prove too difficult to persuade us. The fact here is that you've been edit warring against consensus. Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Using a fluctuating IP to engage in a revert war violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reported again below. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

walter gorlitz (Result: Incomplete report)[edit]

I am the chief editor on Kit Carson. It has been sent to GA noms. Wlater gorlitz is making inappropriate, irrelevant changes and reverts to the article. Please help! This behavior seems his operating procedure from a glance at his archives. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

SeeSpot Run A) There is no such thing as a chief editor on any article. B) This is not the way to file a 3rr report. C) This will be blanked soon if not before I am done typing. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was just going to say that. Please see WP:OWN.
The consensus on the talk page (a discussion between at least three editors, including SeeSpot Run) is that the removal of a specific infobox is not appropriate for the article, but SeeSpot Run's attitude is that he's the primary editor and he knows what's best for the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Carson had a "multi-faceted" career. He was not simply a "military man". The infobox needs to reflect this rather than focusing on his lackluster, tired 8-year military career. WP is not under an obligation to the "military fans". SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. This report is incomplete. See instructions at the top of this board for making a proper report of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jidhin George reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
LG G2 Mini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jidhin George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "Added content"
Comments:

Continuing to put back the same unsourced content even after having been recently blocked for his actions on the same article. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom reported by User:MoorNextDoor (Result: No action at this time)[edit]

We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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: Multiple pages
User being reported: Prhartcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Diff
  2. Diff
  3. Diff
  4. Diff
  5. Diff
  6. Diff
  7. Diff
  8. Diff
  9. Diff
  10. Diff
  11. Diff
  12. Diff
  13. Diff
  14. Diff
  15. Diff
  16. Diff
  17. Diff
  18. Diff 18:33, 30 January 2015
  19. Diff 18:49, 30 January 2015
  20. Diff 22:18, 30 January 2015
  21. Diff 22:21, 30 January 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. Diff
  2. Diff

Unsigned diff added to the list by Prhartcom at 20:07, 30 January 2015. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. Diff

Comments:
Prhartcom has repeatedly reverted to various disputed versions of the articles, while discussion is taking place. In the edit summary, he also made it clear to JOJ (see edit summary) that he intends to abuse the editing power that WP:AWB gives him. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. This report has a history to it (see this discussion at Bjelleklang's Talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bbb23:. This report is about edit warring and WP:AWB abuse, it is completely unrelated to the other one. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Then you'll have to do a better job demonstrating your case because after looking at a few of your many diffs, it seems to be a small battle across many pages between Prhartcom and Jojhutton. Nor am I sure why you are reporting this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • @Bbb23: What you call a small battle is nothing less than edit warring and WP:AWB abuse. You mean we need a good reason to report such behaviour ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
          • All I see is one change by Prhartcom, a revert by Jojhutton, and a revert back by Prhartcom. Where's the edit warring? Nor do I see any "AWB abuse". The ones I looked at didn't even involve AWB. OTOH, I do see that based on your previous interaction with the reported user, you may have an ulterior motive for reporting this. That's all I have to say on this matter. I do not intend to take any action. If another admin feels differently, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
            • @Bbb23: You'll notice that there is one change by Prhartcom, a revert by Jojhutton, and a revert back by Prhartcom in all listed pages. Furthermore, you'll also notice how Prhartcom made it quite clear (in the edit summary) that he intends to abuse the editing power that WP:AWB gives him. As for the ulterior motive, I have noticed his bullish behaviour and the way he plays the system, it's that simple (but if you want to bring his canvassing issue into this, then by all means do). Some editors have been around for so long, they feel that the rules don't apply to them any more, I can't help but feel that a small reminder wouldn't do them any harm.
            • Maybe I misunderstood the rules, but I thought that the part that stipulates that "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached" meant that such behaviour could and should be reported by anyone. MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
                • That user was clearly Taunting me, but I didn't take the bait. Yet this is clearly disruptive behavior when a user is willing to abuse the tools in order to push an edit war. I may just go to ANI.--JOJ Hutton 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action at this time. This report is wide ranging and could use a better focus. If the dispute is about the title of the Tintin movie, then User:Prhartcom's effort to open a move discussion at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015 may solve the problem. See also the above comment by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to the wise administrators of this board including EdJohnston and Bbb23. As EdJohnston wondered aloud what the dispute is about, it's about the WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me by recently blocked user MoorNextDoor, whose statistics show he prefers typing on Talk pages over improvements to Wikipedia articles, because of his resentment to consolation and advice I once gave to another editor whom they have also have an unhealthy grudge against. I fully expect to see some sort of retort by MoorNextDoor below, but as for myself, I have long since returned to productivity and suggest this editor do the same. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Consider yourself lucky this time, you're getting away with 3RR in one page and many others across different pages, your name will be remembered the next time someone complaints about your behaviour. In the meantime, fire up WP:AWB and go back to doing what you do best "gaming the system". I didn't want to bring up the other subject or say what I think of someone who manipulates others and engages in blatant canvassing, but since you insist, I have no other choice but to let the others judge for themselves what your so called advice consisted of and most importantly, why you gave it. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect about 3RR. Prhartcom and Jojhutton both reverted three times on that page. I'm closing this. Any comments by anyone other than an administrator will be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2015 (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.


User:Amblerdrive reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Amblerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC) to 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644877938 by Capitalismojo (talk) -- This charge is not unverified. The source is identified in the edit and in the Talk section on Use of "Alleged""
    2. 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644881404 by Amblerdrive (talk)"
  2. 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644737665 by Gaijin42 (talk) -- See talk page for "Marquette""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 14:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) to 14:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 14:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644660197 by Capitalismojo (talk) Blog link to transcript replaced to link to reputable news source."
    2. 14:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644659889 by Capitalismojo (talk) -- Not undue. This was the Marquette student newspaper offering valuable early insight.."
  4. 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644624123 by Gaijin42 (talk) -- Edits remove factually supported and documented elements of Walker's college and political careers. Appears to be politically motivated."
  5. 22:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC) ""Alma mater" implies a school from which one has graduated. Walker did not graduate from college."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Scott Walker. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Marquette Scandal */ WP:V Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors"
  2. 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Marquette Scandal */ r"
Comments:
  • Result: Warned. If User:Amblerdrive continues to revert at Scott Walker he is risking a block. The safest approach is to wait for a talk page consensus. At first glance it appears that Amblerdrive wants to make this article more negative about the subject. So when he reverts and includes in his edit summary "Appears to be politically motivated" it looks ironic. I don't see a clear 3RR here, otherwise a block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nograviti reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Semi, warning)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 23:04, 29 January 2015
  2. Revision as of 14:28, 30 January 2015
  3. Revision as of 14:30, 30 January 2015
  4. Revision as of 19:20, 30 January 2015
  5. Revision as of 19:21, 30 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28], [29], [30]

Comments: IP-hopping user edit warring over misleading material. Apparently switched to using a single purpose account when he/she reached three reverts. Middayexpress (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Only logged in today and requested the user attain consensus before making edits to the British Nigerian page. The user wishes to use a report from one London borough (Please be aware there are 32 in London alone and the report is not a national level report) citing general statistics on Africans to replace specific data of the academic attainment of British Nigerian children.
I reverted Midday's edits as I assumed they were in good faith, instead of engaging in discussion, the used has been dishonest about IP hopping and immediately raised a 3RR request.
All I would request is that this warring request is ignored and Midday's changes be reverted until he achieves consensus. Additionally the reports he has cited can be defined as WP:OR as he attempting to use a local report for one region in London against data collected specifically on that ethnic group at a national level.Nograviti (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Even assuming both IPs are the named account, there are only three reverts. You are counting consecutive edits as separate reverts. BTW, you also have three reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood Bbb23, but there's apparently more to this. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nograviti: Nigerians are aggregated within the official African total indicated by the Camden Education Commission, while the 78% figure that you have been trying to force through is a WP:REDFLAG figure only found in that one editorial. This is irrelant anyway, as this venue isn't for continuing disputes (see note at the top). The fact that you apparently haven't logged in since this summer, never edited the British Nigerian page with this account prior to today, wrote virtually identical messages as the ip hopper ([31] [32], [33]), and showed up just when the ip hopper had reached three reverts, also strongly suggests that you are indeed the ip hopper (who, btw, already admitted to ip hopping [34]). Ironically, I wouldn't have even bothered with all this had you simply stuck with one ip and actually engaged my various attempts at discussion on your talk page instead of ignoring them. By the way, it's remarkable that your very first edit on Wikipedia just so happened to be to this very board, and on the same British Nigerian page you never even ostensibly edited prior to today [35]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion is not fact. Please revert your changes as your sources are WP:OR and in the meantime we can go into a dispute resolution process about the data. I am a British professor and I take a keen interest in minority achievement (Nigerians being a wonderful black success story) and look at the page periodically to see what new information has been provided and saw your recent edit warring and decided to intervene.
I don't take kindly to a man who is obviously of Somali extraction removing information for what are probably personal reasons then trying to pass of flimsy material as a more worthy replacement. .Nograviti (talk)
I already explained why I removed that editorial's WP:REDFLAG figure, and it has nothing to do with the odd conjecture above. Unfortunately, I also don't volunteer personal info, nor do I take personal claims at face value. They must first at the very least make sense. At any rate, I've replied on the talk page (a discussion which I also started); please direct any future responses there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected one month, and user warned for ethnic remarks. If User:Nograviti is IP-hopping in addition to using his registered account, it violates WP:SOCK. Nograviti is warned not to attack other users per what he assumes to be their ethnicity. You are expected to get consensus for any controversial changes. See also the comments of User:Bbb23 above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:70.190.111.213 reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked)[edit]

At first I noticed his non-stop revert warring in Portal:Current events pages I happened to edit. But boy! This guy went berserk! Give him some time to cool off. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • 08:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+601)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644862882 by 86.188.249.71 (talk)dude we have a source specifically saying he is dead you have a neboulous source saying an age which might be in error)
  • 08:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644862926 by 86.188.249.71 (talk))
  • 07:40, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+644)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644855581 by Brook8987 (talk)dude you dont have a citation to support and you dont know the 55 age is the error)
  • 07:40, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644856571 by Kobechrome (talk))
  • 07:01, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+619)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644852141 by Udar55 (talk)dude many sources say it was actor terry and you dont know that the age of 55 is not the error here) (Tag: removal of Category:Living People)
  • 05:38, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644819901 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
  • 05:38, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820016 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
  • 05:37, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820053 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
  • 05:37, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820197 by DivineAlpha (talk))
  • 05:36, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+481)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820643 by 76.180.38.195 (talk))
  • 05:35, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820913 by 76.180.38.195 (talk))
  • 05:35, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+175)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644821365 by 169.232.239.35 (talk))
  • 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644821447 by 108.89.111.45 (talk))
  • 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822101 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
  • 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822549 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
  • 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822625 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
  • 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822770 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
  • 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644824521 by 173.58.85.148 (talk)) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
  • 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644824560 by 173.58.85.148 (talk))
  • 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-267)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644827269 by Image2012 (talk))
  • 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644828831 by Bgwhite (talk))
  • 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+154)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644828963 by Canuckian89 (talk))
  • 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+131)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829516 by 76.219.189.199 (talk))
  • 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829542 by 76.219.189.199 (talk))
  • 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829949 by John of Reading (talk))
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The Carter article was also semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:58.106.54.113 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of UFC events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.106.54.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original layout

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First he adds it...
  2. Then he removes it.
  3. Adds it again.
  4. Clearly is something he adds on his own will to disrupt the article.
  5. As seen on the page's edit history, there's plenty of edits of the same pattern. The IP adds this non-existent event, removes it and does it again. Other IPs did it as well, there's also some people that take advantage of it to add vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:58.106.54.113 I've sent a warning to this specific IP.

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

Comments:

The article works fine with the registered editors that update it's content. Due to constant vandalism - and should I say edit warring as IPs keep doing it - I believe the best thing for the article would be to give it protection. Maybe a month. It might be enough time to get this ones away as we didn't have problems like this before. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Add on: User keeps edit warring and has also gone all the way to personal offense (here and here) I maintain my suggestion of protection of the page as there's chance it will happen with a different IP address, as well as blocking this one. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Liberal36 reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: The River (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liberal36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]
  4. [39]
  5. [40]
  6. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
IP user logs in to continue edit warring after the article was semi'd (see #User:77.49.169.33 reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Semi) above). Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've also left a message on Impru20's Talk page about their violation of 3RR. I'm waiting to hear from them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:200.83.136.145 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked by Kww)[edit]

Page: The Mary Tyler Moore Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.83.136.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]

Diff of edit warring: [48]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:IP keeps removing brief quotes from lead of the article. He oddly claims that the use of the quotes is a copyright violation. Even in the discussion on my Talk page he on the one hand says it's impermissible and on the other hand seems to say that quotes are okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not odd at all. They are not quotes. They are non-free text being used in place of free text, masquerading as quotes, and thus in contravention of core policy. Quote are OK, non-free text instead of a free alternative is not OK. Not hard to understand, surely. I have explained this carefully; you reverted without giving a reason, which appeared to be purely disruptive. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll make one last effort at this and then leave it to others. If you're saying the language is "non-free text", that must mean it was copied from a copyrighted source. How can such text marked clearly with quotation marks be "masquerading as quotes"? What is the difference between these quotes and other quotes in articles that are, according to you, "OK"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
So let's start Winston Churchill as follows:
"Sir Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (born Nov. 30, 1874, Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, Eng.—died Jan. 24, 1965, London), British statesman, orator, and author who as prime minister (1940–45, 1951–55) rallied the British people during World War II and led his country from the brink of defeat to victory."[1]
It's in quotes so it's OK, even if it's copied from Britannica. Right? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Britannica
(e/c) This IP is supposed to be editing under a 0RR restriction, which was a condition of his unblocking [51]. An admin unblocked him with that specific condition [52], which he agreed to [53]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's who this is. That explains a lot. @Drmies:?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. Looking at all of this IPs edits from the second one on, the user pretty much does nothing but revert the edits of others, leave negative and cutting edit summaries with personal attack-like comments, and edit war. Certainly doesn't look like a new user, likely evading a block or sanction. -- WV 15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Like I have highlighted in my previous comment, you can check Best known for IP. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Bbb--thanks for the ping. Yes, this is the editor that some other editors have given a nickname and an LTV page. They weren't supposed to be reverting; Yngvadottir has the paperwork, somewhere. Eh...what shall I comment on? Winkelvi, don't shoot from the hip; this editor is certainly HERE, though they're here with an attitude, certainly. Their positive edits far outweigh the negative ones, and you of all people should be able to understand how they feel. That doesn't make them automatically right, of course.

    We're not here for content, I suppose, since this is the EW board; I do not agree with the restrictive, too-principled stand of the IP editor, but everyone knows (esp. Moonriddengirl) that I'm no expert.

    Anyway, if the editor broke the deal, then I suppose they're blockable. I won't be the one to do it, since I'm also babysitting this morning, plus, I don't feel like blocking anyone right now. (And I haven't looked at the diffs--but if Bbb says "it's edit warring", then I trust it was.) Can you hold on/off/out until Yngvadottir has seen this? I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You don't feel like blocking anyone? Are you ill? I can't speak for other admins, but I can certainly wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Point(s) taken, Drmies. -- WV 16:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to wait: the editor was unblocked on a 0RR restriction and has clearly violated it. That he could not be trusted to follow any restriction was obvious at the time that the arrangement was made. It was also unfortunately clear at the time that the administrators that were entering into the agreement were unenthusiastic about actually enforcing it. I've reinstated the block on the IP, and suggest that, as a project, we recognize that whatever we might think about the motives behind unblocking the IP in the first place, it's an experiment that failed.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Kww, I agree with your first sentence. What follows is unnecessary. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Just got home from work ... and I'm afraid he/she is indeed in violation of the agreement. Bbb23 has shown at least 3 reverts above (I'm not sure about the first diff), and zero reverts was indeed the condition for unblocking him/her, as cited by OccultZone. I see the editor's point, but he/she had options other than reverting. Damn. I was just wondering where this person had got to. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article, which is undoing another editor or editors' work. But I'm more interested in your comment that you see the IP's point. I'd sincerely like to be illuminated on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article ... So the IP would be in breach of 0RR for removing any piece of text? Alakzi (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on the circumstances. 0RR is a difficult restriction, and in this instance, had I known/remembered about this IP's restriction, I would not have blocked them for the first edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that Bbb23's belief that every removal of text is a reversion isn't widely embraced. Most reject it on the basis that, while it's hard to disprove with pure logic, it's an example of pure logic leading to an absurd result.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Far be it from me to state that I disagree with Bbb. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree that it leads to an "absurd result", but this has been rehashed too many times for me to explain in detail why.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(ping didn't work) @Bbb23: As I understand it, the IP's point is that we are to minimize our use of quotations, since for works that are not copyright-free they are in effect a form of fair use. In this instance the passage can be reworded with little or no quotation, so it should be. This is distinct from the requirement to clearly indicate the source, which obtains for both paraphrase and quotation. (Copyright experts, how did I do?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Thanks. First, the IP didn't just say this would be better reworded. He claimed keeping it was a copyright violation, which is simply not true. Second, this quote and many other quotes would go out the window if one followed the IP's logic. Third, sometimes it's more eloquent to quote the source than it is to reword it. Did this ping work? If the first one didn't, you should report it at here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)