Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swarm (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 28 March 2015 (→User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h): 24 hours). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Piriczki reported by User:Manning Bartlett

    Page
    Eagles (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    The user is insisting on keeping a claim that the Eagles have the #1 album of all time, as there is a single 15 year old reference that supports this claim. I have pointed out that there are numerous other references available on Wikipedia which flat out contradict this claim, but the user is insisting on keeping it. (see discussion here) We have hit 3RR now. Manning (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    PS mobile browser issues - I have not posted a notification on the user's page, I can't seem to copy the subst tag. If someone else can do it I would be most grateful. Manning (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done [1] Mlpearc (open channel) 03:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Manning Bartlett please note that you have not filed a proper edit warring report so this may be rejected. Use the "Click here to create a new report" link near the top of the page to go to find a form that will allow you to create a report. On the other hand this looks to be a content dispute. A conversation has begun on the talk page. You will need to continue there. Next you can request a third opinion or a WP:RFC. MarnetteD|Talk 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, mobile browser problems, can't get the subst tags to work properly. That is no grounds for rejecting an issue, as I have certainly provided all the links you need. And of course this is a content-dispute - what edit-war isn't? We have a 3RR situation, and as has been the way for the past 13 years, I am bringing for attention. I am also an administrator, but as is appropriate, I am not using my tools for a dispute I am personally engaged in. Manning (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid that you will find that you haven't. In fact Piriczki has only made one edit inserting the info and one reversion in the last 24 hours. So you may not wish to pursue the options I provided at the moment, but, you will have to eventually. MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) Hm...it's possible that this is a misunderstanding. I'm going to hold off on any action for the moment and jump in on the talk page. Swarm X 03:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

    Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎Getoverpops (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. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that

    Comments:

    This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See [[6]] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see [7]. The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule [[8]]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.
    For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit [9] that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:
    In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.
    After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:
    In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5] Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism.[6][7][8][9] Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.
    This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.
    As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Slight rebootage here:

    Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."
    Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."
    Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"
    Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

    Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under [[10]] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:24.212.232.229 (Result: Protected)

    Page: 2015 Pan American Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14]
    4. [15]

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

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

    Comments:
    I spent extensive time adding information, backed up by sources, to this page. This user reverted everything, continuously, and posted a message to my talk page threatening to block me for my edits when I called him on reverting in bad faith and edit warring. (User_talk:24.212.232.229).

    If I may add, I peeked at one of User talk:24.212.232.229s past edits to a Toronto-based article, such as this one, and it was pure vandalism. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I left my comments on the user's talk page. Most of these edits are not neutral. Some of the information you added is incorrect (such as the budget growing from $1.44 billion, that's completely wrong). Other information such as linking unrelated transit projects to the games makes no sense for the article. According to the bidbook only the rail link was supposed to be built because of the games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 3 days. It appears that both parties have broken WP:3RR. Neither editor has used article talk to discuss the material they are reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted on the user's talk page... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NatalieLMorales reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: blocked and protected)

    Page
    Natalie Morales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    NatalieLMorales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653549055 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
    2. 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653548197 by Joseph2302 (talk) It all n the article. Many pages have career timelines on them. I am am the real Natalie also."
    3. 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653547469 by Joseph2302 (talk) I am Natalie Morales from The today Show"
    4. 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Please do not revert this I want a career timeline on my page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Natalie Morales. (TW)"
    2. 02:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Natalie Morales. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user has a clear conflict of interest, that they seem unwilling to properly discuss, see WP:COIN. They are adding a career summary because they want to, despite it being a direct copy of the infobox. This has been explained to them in edit summaries, and at WP:COIN, but is being ignored. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Russavia reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Semi)

    Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [16] 1st insertion of text by (and singed by) banned User:Russavia

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]
    5. [21]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] He's using multiple IPs and clearly knows that he is banned so I haven't warned directly

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

    Comments:

    See WP:BANREVERT - Any user can revert a banned user without regard to 3RR. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note I'm not sure why you brought this report here. If I understand properly, Russavia, a blocked and banned user, has been using various IPs on Jimbo's talk page and you and others were reverting them. This is not an issue for this board. It's a clear socking issue and would be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia. In any event, in terms of the disruption at the Talk page, Crisco 1492 semi-protected the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.82.32.57 reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    GeForce 900 series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    124.82.32.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "There is no false advertisting, stop trying to slander and smear campaign"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"
      2. 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 124.82.32.57 (talk) to last version by Weegeerunner"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    multiple edits to remove valid 'false advertizing' category, attempts to talk with this user have not been successful. Seems to be a nvidia fanboy or associated with them. Denniss (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Add-on - user keeps blanking his talk page (removed warnings from me and two other users), obviously not interested in any discussion, did also not start discussing cat removal on article talk page. Don't know if that's just trolling/vandalism or paid editing. In his reverts he called me a liar and starting a smear campaign, the false advertizing cat is valid for the Geforce 970 issue with falsely advertized specifications. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This appears to be an unsourced claim which Nvidia denies. Perhaps the controversy, accusations, and ongoing can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but unilaterally labeling it as a matter of categorization seems to pretty obviously go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And while the IP received templated policy notification, I don't even see any real attempt at discussion from either side. Don't see a one-way block as a solution here. Swarm X 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read GeForce_900_series#GeForce_970_specifications_controversy - it's really hard to believe the specifications on their website (also communicated to and via their board partners) were 'accidentally' wrong. No serious hardware-related source believes this claim. If users hadn't questioned and investigated the strange performance issues shown by 970s, nvidia would still show the original (known wrong) specification. --Denniss (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the false advertising category when it is well sourced is just plain vandalism. This report would have been better taken to WP:AIV after the required vandalism warnings. I just won't use my administrator tools to block this vandal because I have been in a conflict with the same user, who edits from some Malaysian IPs. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree that this is vandalism. The controversy section in the article is well-written and sourced, and it could probably even be expanded. However the article itself makes no claim of false advertising. I understand the accusations completely and they're probably right, but in the spirit of NPOV and RS, the article shouldn't take a stance unless the claim is supported by reliable sources. Regardless, Page protected until April 2 by MelanieN, which I agree with. Swarm X 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.235.6.109 reported by User:Iselilja (Result: 24h)

    Page
    Loreen (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    213.235.6.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) "Loreen isin't white and theres nothing racist about stating facts"
    2. 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653440172 by Jjj1238 (talk) I agree, therefore we should inform the readers that loreen has indeed immigrant parents and is not a native white swede"
    3. 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Swedish people are white, Loreen isin't white, so as not to confuse the readers Loreen isin't really Swedish"
    4. 11:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653594207 by AxG (talk) See the link to swedish people, all of them are white and always were. Loreen isin't white and therefore no need to link her with native swedes"
    5. 12:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653596251 by Iselilja (talk) Call the racist police then"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Loreen (singer). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User's edits may also be seen as basically vandalism. Iselilja (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:104.173.225.10 reported by User:Skyerise (Result: semi)

    Page: Strauss–Howe generational theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 104.173.225.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] (I am not involved, but IP shows it knows about 3RR in this discussion.)

    Comments:


    The above edits involve different material, specifically these are not the same:
    1. [29]
    2. [30]
    and the Casey Research edits were taken to the talk page as required by Wikipedia policy. Thank you!104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually read WP:3RR: the reverts do not have to be of the same material. It's a simple count of reverts on an article in a 24 hour period. You've hit 4. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are exceptions i.e. "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language". See my comment about removing potential vandalism in the edit summary on the page.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    well-intentioned user No uninvolved user is going to think you were reverting vandalism, no matter how you try to create a loophole. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor removed many sources from the page. It appeared to be "potential vandalism". I will not try to judge the editor's intentions. I think he/she should not have removed the sources because they provide good information about the subject, and they're not promotional. In fact he/she removed Strauss and Howe from the Generations page too when that is ridiculous and makes it seem like they're eradicating them from the site.104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can judge the editor's intentions by their edit summaries and talk page post. You've been here long enough with your past IPs and done enough wikilawyering to know this. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to stay away from judging people's intentions on the site. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that certainly prevents one from judging whether an edit really fits our definition of vandalism or not. Perhaps you should reconsider this, especically when the editor involved tells you exactly what their intent is and what WP policies they are enforcing. Skyerise (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I used the non-judgmental "potential vandalism".104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Potential vandalism" isn't "obvious vandalism", which is what is required for a "free" revert. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll I'm fairly new to the site compared with the editor who says they've been editing for "10 years, 7 months, and 6 days". I don't think his/her removal of the content does much for the site but it's a question for greater powers to answer. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, create an account and be accountable. An account is actually more anonymous than an IP in that it does not reveal your location. Plus you get a watch list and lots of other nifty stuff. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vivi243971 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 72h)

    Page: Malcom Filipe Silva de Oliveira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Vivi243971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [31] This

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32] On March 12, this was his first disruptive edit.
    2. [33] 12 days later he comes back once again with disruptive updates.
    3. [34] He was asked to stop.
    4. [35] He was warned about edit warring after this one.
    5. [36] This was after the warning

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

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

    Comments:
    Pretty simple situation. We have an editor doing disruptive updates based on his own will. He was asked to stop, warned and still kept on going with incorrect updates. There's no good faith there as the section is pretty clear and the data is "obvious". Looks like he won't stop until he gets blocked. Might keep doing it more if he gets blocked for a small period. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Not sure what this editor's deal is but if this behavior continues after this block expires I would recommend an indef as a vandalism-only account, per Occam's razor. Feel free to let me know if future action is needed or refer another admin to this report. Swarm X 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.113.44.178 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: 24h)

    Page: Higgins (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.113.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]

    Since the original report, the IP Editor has twice made changes to the same text in the article:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    This is a quite simple case, and edit summaries have communicated the need for sources adequately, equating to short discussion

    Comments:
    First Diff, IP editor reverts long standing figure of 163 appearances to 195 without source or edit summary. I request a source in my edit summary, and restore the original value.

    Second Diff, IP Editor reverts, and replaces the figure of 163 to 147, again unsourced. Again, I restore the original data, and request a source in my edit summary.

    Third Diff, IP Editor uses original research and claims to have watched all episodes on YouTube, and reverts to the 147 value. (Note that it is impossible to actually watch six season of a half hour program, ~90 hours, in less than a day) This time, I actually research and find the appropriate number of episodes (184) via IMDB and reference that in my edit summary with the appropriate change. Yes, I do know that IMDB is not an RS for biographical data, but it is accepted for credits.

    Fourth Diff, IP Editor reverts to their Original Research figure of 147. Subsequently, I stopped editing and came here.

    Since the initial report, the Fifth and Sixth Diffs presented have been made, again changing the values of that data.

    As this is my first time posting to this board, I trust that I will be informed if I have malformed this request, or have somehow misunderstood the rules. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Pretty straightforward case. FYI your report was filed perfectly and your clear explanation of the situation is very much appreciated. Feel free to return if the problem persists. Regards, Swarm X 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much! Am I permitted at this point to restore the sourced content, or would that be a continuation of the edit war? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    By all means, restore the correct info! Swarm X 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RABBIT XVII reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48h)

    Page
    Kalvin Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    RABBIT XVII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 00:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 00:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 00:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing templates on Kalvin Wilson. (TW)"
    2. 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing templates. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user has created Kalvin Wilson, and is deliberately obstructing a WP:BLPPROD deletion, by removing templates. 7 reversions in 2 hours is clear edit-warring, especially as most of their edits have been removing WP:BLPPROD tags without actually solving the problem. I tried referring this to WP:AIV, but they told me to refer the case here instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Adjusted to remove giant templates. Article deleted as a negative unsourced BLP. I'm going to block for 48 hours for edit-warring, promotion and BLP violations. We'll see if they take it to heart when the block expires. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.238.221.199 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24h)

    Page: General relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 77.238.221.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. User is non-responsive and was blocked before for same edit in another article. See sock 37.208.33.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Comments:

    User:Drmerishs reported by User:Zad68 (Result: indef)

    Page
    Cerebral palsy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Drmerishs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
      2. 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
      2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Respecties, This is not a vandalism. Its a true document of Siddha Medicine. This the Evidence of Traditional Indian Medicine. We are following the Procedures here. We cure lot of childrens. If you need to see, you can come"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      1. 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
      2. 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "welcome"
    2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* rsplease */ new section"
    3. 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cerebral palsy. (TW)"
    4. 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edits at Cerebral palsy */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor keeps re-adding unsourced or poorly-sourced material. Latest edits re-added same material and threw in link to source that does not support content. Warnings and direction to Wikipedia sourcing standards unheeded. Zad68 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest this editor be indef blocked as a spam-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would certainly require their attention before they could continue, I'm OK with that approach. Zad68 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. Concur with Ed completely for obvious reasons. No contributions to the project whatsoever except for the promotion of a pseudoscientific belief system in an important medical article. Swarm X 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:D-Pro22 reported by User:Kareldorado (Result: No action)

    Page: Eden Hazard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: D-Pro22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [53]
    2. [54]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #1: [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #2: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [58]

    Comments:

    • This user refuses to participate in a proper discussion and carries no arguments why his/her source would be reliable.
    • The article's talk page is neglected even though I emphasized time after time that this user should use it.
    Kareldorado (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I have commented on the articles talk page regarding policy-based guidance on the matter. Swarm X 21:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)

    Page: Texas Southern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Broadmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (among several other warnings and notices from different editors)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

    Comments:

    This editor has been edit-warring with multiple editors across multiple articles with little productive discussion in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kharkiv07 reported by User:98.193.95.34 (Result: IP blocked)

    Page: Jordis Unga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kharkiv07 (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. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653818837
    2. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817997
    3. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817932
    4. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=651843368

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

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

    98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Castncoot reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Castncoot (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. [67]
    2. [68]
    3. [69]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:

    User has a history of tendentious editing in this article. There was lengthy discussion of this material involving multiple editors, and consensus was reached on the material to be added and the wording to be used. The material is well-referenced in the appropriate section of the article. There is no consensus that this material needs to have the references repeated in the lede, in fact the references were at one point in the lede, and were removed by editor Hike395[[72]] as being unnecessary. To the extent that we have consensus, it is that the references do not belong on the lede. There is certainly not the "case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" required for inclusion of the references required by WP:LEADCITEMark Marathon (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually not so. No consensus was reached, as I've noted on the talk page, just that this editor declared one had been reached. In fact, other editors actually had significant problems with his wording. Not only that, but I started the sequence by undoing Mark Marathon's edit today, not the other way around. Most importantly, Mark Marathon is the one who partially reverted himself recently and added a citation-needed tag, and now he wants to take back his edit on his preferred terms. The whole issue here is silly, because all I am asking for is a citation in the lede of an extremely contentious statement. Ultimately, WP:LEADCITE defers to WP:CITE and WP:RS, otherwise one could write anything in the lead section under this pretext; and in any case, WP:LEADCITE also demands WP:Verifiability. Why fight? Just cite! Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that you are edit warring. You have no consensus for your changes and refuse to gain consensus on the talk page. That is in blatant violation of WP:BRD, WP:STAUSQUO and WP:LEADCITE. Consensus is not gained by repeatedly reverting. That is an edit war.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, 1) the initial changes today were yours, not mine, and 2) no consensus was reached by you either for these changes or the recent previous ones you had claimed consensus for.[73][74] So aren't you technically the edit warrior here? Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JasonNolan64 reported by User:88RRRR88 (Result: No action)

    Page: American Ninja Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: JasonNolan64 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=American_Ninja_Warrior&diff=653831083&oldid=653817332
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    User:Lightning Sabre reported by User:Veggies (Result:blocked indef)

    Page
    United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lightning Sabre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Memorials */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has been warned in the past [75] about his behavior under the pain of an indef block. Veggies (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Editors should also note that this disruptive user has also edited under IP: User:92.97.208.37, as well as another sockpuppet account - now blocked. They have also left block warning notices, when not authorised to do so. They have had multiple warnings and have taken no notice. I totally support an indef block. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After all the discussion and warnings, this user is still asking for the block to be reviewed again - with further promises that disruption will not happen again. Frankly this is nonsense, as they have taken absolutely no notice of requests and warnings previously. I would remind admins and editors of the following:

    • Deleting numerous warnings from many editors to stop vandalizing articles through March 2015.
    • Ignoring warnings regarding taking credit for, and downloading, copyright images on March 24 and March 28.
    • Removing legitimate Talk page comments on March 24 and March 28.
    • Creating unauthorised "Block Warning" notices on March 28.
    • Account blocked on March 25 and again on March 28.

    With this extremely poor history, I urge the community not to lift the latest block. Wikipedia can well do without this constant vandalism. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.238.217.48 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Kepler's laws of planetary motion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    77.238.217.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Newton's law of gravitation */"
    2. 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring - March 2015 */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User appears to be single purpose account spamming/soapboxing the same edit across multiple articles - Standard gravitational parameter, Orbital period, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Portal:Physics/Intro, Force, Mechanics. Also appears to be involved in an edit war at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Appears to be related to User:77.238.231.199 reported recently. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That IP is banned User:Sevvyan reinserted the same edits he got banned for. Most probably Omerbasic promoting himself in physics and with his trone pretension of Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Littleboyck reported by User:Vuttamarr (Result: reporter blocked)

    User:Littleboyc is constantly warring on a number of articles and has now violated our wonderful 3RR policy right here on New York. See

    Then after final warning[76],

    he did fifth[77].

    He is not willing to discuss his changes all of which go against consensus. --Vuttamarr (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All of those links are to an edit made in 2013 in which Littleboyck did no reversions. Proper evidence and differences of edit warring will be needed. Also, have you warned the user that you've reported them on here? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be simple trolling; the reporter has been blocked for other activities. Kuru (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h)

    Page
    Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653925283 by BethNaught (talk) stop it"
    2. 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899799 by Dsimic (talk) if such consensus will affect the truth of information, then being against it is obligatory"
    3. 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899270 by Dsimic (talk) Why you not stop first?"
    4. 15:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653757638 by Ahunt (talk) consensus shouldn't affect the truth of information"
    5. 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653756540 by Ahunt (talk)"
    6. 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is considered a kernel until someone else prove the opposite of that. if you have any thing against that just discuss it and prove it."
    7. 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is just a piece of code, so prove me how it's an os."
    8. 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653740382 by Haminoon (talk) explain why you did that revert"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor is trying to put article into their preferred version despite standing talk page agreement and being reverted by several other editors. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=653938945"