HappyWaldo (talk | contribs) |
HappyWaldo (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
:::'''Important Note''': [[User:HappyWaldo|HappyWaldo]] has since made this edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&type=revision&diff=837949349&oldid=837938551] This is a non-consensus edit and simply clearly avoids the talkpage. It is plainly actually wrong as explained above. Worse the cite cannot be verified. [[User:Swarm]] please advise on the next course of action here, as it seems just like deliberate provocation. [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 01:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::'''Important Note''': [[User:HappyWaldo|HappyWaldo]] has since made this edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&type=revision&diff=837949349&oldid=837938551] This is a non-consensus edit and simply clearly avoids the talkpage. It is plainly actually wrong as explained above. Worse the cite cannot be verified. [[User:Swarm]] please advise on the next course of action here, as it seems just like deliberate provocation. [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 01:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::One other user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=837938551&oldid=837826354 made an edit] to the page hours ago that I did not revert, because it was an improvement. I am only interested in improving the page and keeping up its quality. Other editors are welcome to do the same. You are more interested in acting on your [[WP:GRUDGE]] against me, and coming up with nonsensical reasons to edit war. Also [[User:Swarm|Swarm]], sorry to drag you back into this mess, but Arianewiki1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=837964799&oldid=837964200 keeps adding a template] stating that the article "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". Given Arian's poor track record in assessing the reliability of cites, this appears to be another way to act out his grudge. - [[User:HappyWaldo|HappyWaldo]] ([[User talk:HappyWaldo|talk]]) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |
::::One other user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=837938551&oldid=837826354 made an edit] to the page hours ago that I did not revert, because it was an improvement. I am only interested in improving the page and keeping up its quality. Other editors are welcome to do the same. You are more interested in acting on your [[WP:GRUDGE]] against me, and coming up with nonsensical reasons to edit war. Also [[User:Swarm|Swarm]], sorry to drag you back into this mess, but Arianewiki1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=837964799&oldid=837964200 keeps adding a template] stating that the article "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". Given Arian's poor track record in assessing the reliability of cites, this appears to be another way to act out his grudge. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arianewiki1&diff=837963779&oldid=837962499 I asked him on his talk page] to list all of the "dubious cites" he mentioned in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=837955567&oldid=837949349 this edit summary], telling him that he may be banned if he continues to act in bad faith, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arianewiki1&diff=837964499&oldid=837963779 he reverted my inquiry with another nonsensical edit summary]. He is not interested in backing up his claim, just being a disruptive troll. - [[User:HappyWaldo|HappyWaldo]] ([[User talk:HappyWaldo|talk]]) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Zemora95]] reported by [[User:Zero0000]] (Result: Moved to ANI) == |
== [[User:Zemora95]] reported by [[User:Zero0000]] (Result: Moved to ANI) == |
Revision as of 02:52, 24 April 2018
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
User:Torsodog reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: Page protected)
Page: Momoiro Clover Z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Torsodog (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5][6]
Comments:
There were open discussions at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Urgent help needed: Momoiro Clover Z (begun 28 March 2018, which Torsodog participated in), Talk:Momoiro Clover Z#blackface (begun 27 March 2018), and Talk:Momoiro Clover Z#So............................ (begun 3 April 2018). Even though Torsodog was obviously aware of these discussions, and of how disputed the material they were adding was, they not only added the material, but editwarred against myself and Moscow Connection to keep it in—the last revert was after we had interacted on both Torsodog's talk page and the WP:JAPAN talk page. Bad-faith edit comments include "what is there to discuss?"—this coming after nearly a month of discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I added two sentences of sourced material to the article today in good faith to flesh out an existing sentence and have been continually reverted by 2 editors who cannot give a good reason to remove the sentences. As far as violation of 3RR goes, I only reverted 2 edits today on the page, which is one edit short of a 3RR. --TorsodogTalk 00:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- As you can see, we're also dealing with persistent WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- That policy cites arguing long after consensus has been made. Perhaps that's the problem? You are assuming a consensus has been formed when it clearly has not. Bullying and badgering until others drop the issue in futility is not a consensus. --TorsodogTalk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The consensus is do not editwar over content that is under discussion. Stop playing innocent. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- That policy cites arguing long after consensus has been made. Perhaps that's the problem? You are assuming a consensus has been formed when it clearly has not. Bullying and badgering until others drop the issue in futility is not a consensus. --TorsodogTalk 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- As you can see, we're also dealing with persistent WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! "The consensus is do not editwar over content that is under discussion." but Curly Turkey, you and your tag-team buddies were reverting that article just as much as the editor that you reported - or are you just trying to make sure that this report leads to article protection and that the article is reverted to "your version" when it is protected?Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC) The fact that this incident was 48 hours ago, but being reported now, shows that it is a bad faith attempt to obtain article protection of "their version" by providing a very stale 3RR report what didn't go over 3RR. A perfect example of a bad faith report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, look who showed up! Feeling brave now that you survived that SPI, I see?
- The incident was reported immediately after it happened, as anyone can see from the timestamps. Just as you've lied about stats on the Momoiro talk page, you're now peddling your easily-debunked lies here, as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- And you're now editwarring over this against Moscow Connection, too![7][8] Talk about "tag-team buddies"! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- And another revert![9] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- And you're now editwarring over this against Moscow Connection, too![7][8] Talk about "tag-team buddies"! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It's getting ridiculous. Spacecowboy420 knows that he won't be able to find the consensus to add the content into the article using the normal WP:BRD procedure, so he resorts to edit-warring. He should be blocked already for WP:DE. (And he basically admitted himself that he has too much free time at work and just relaxing / having fun here on Wikipedia. At least that's how I understood one of his comments. He should try and do something useful on Wikipedia instead of bothering me for fun. Cause I'm busy with something else now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you can count me out of this. I've reverted only two times today, but I'm already getting warned on my talk page and stuff. I think that's how Wikipedia works. There are people who don't care to be blocked, and these people can have fun and play with serious and law-abiding editors like me. And no one stops them. That's just sad. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: I think it's probably more likely that, if you revert the same material three times in slightly over 24 hours, the implication is that you are gaming the bright-line rule; which is precisely why "edit-warring" is not confined to 3RR :) happy days. And if you could check user talk pages before templating them, that will ensure against duplicating warnings. Many thanks, and happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not "gaming" anything. I remembered I reverted one more time some days ago and I remembered it wasn't today. Anyway, I'm not sure what people usually do here on Wikipedia, but I'm actually creating articles (currently in another language) and I don't have much experience in dealing with edit-warring. (I had some experience in Russian/Ukraine-related articles some years ago and that's why I don't edit them anymore. Other than that, there were some rare incidents and I think I never saw an editor who is as persistent as Spacecowboy420. I think that's because a common editor can't be bothered to fight over a couple of sentences. If not for this, I would have created a couple of stubs already today. Spacecowboy420 robbed me of too much time.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Okay, it happened on the evening of the 21st. (I've just checked the history.) I've stopped already anyway. I think I should thank you for the warning. (I would never revert over 3 times, but I was surely ready to revert one more time today. That was before you posted the warning, I mean.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129—that's a remarkable interpretation of events, given that Spacecowboy reverted three times in less than half an hour. Moscow Connection, on the other hand, reverted the addition of content for which there is already a talk page consensus against. That content is in the article now despite the consensus against because Spacecowboy 3RRed to keep it in. The consensus was against the material before either Torsodog or Spacecowboy editwarred to get it in. Three separate discussions have been open over it for over a month—these two simply refuse to accept consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Shit. I didn't actually see this until just now. My first choice would be for both editors reinserting the counter-consensus content be blocked; protection (which I asked Swarm for before noticing this) is a pessimistic alternative. Given that Spacecowboy420 already waited out a one-week protection without attempting to use that time to discuss, then returned to the page once protection had expired, there really is nothing for it at this point but a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- You sure called it, as if it weren't obvious Spacecowboy was going to pull this. This report has been open two days, and the article has devolved into chaos. Seriously, why can't somebody pull it out and deal with this already? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected due to Hijiri’s unrelated request. Please let me know if there are continued issues when this expires and I will consider either blocking and/or imposing discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"...trying to make sure that this report leads to article protection and that the article is reverted to "your version" when it is protected?" oh yeah, I called it.
Hijiri reverted the article and then TWO minutes later requested directly for the article to be protected? Nice gaming. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, reverting to the last stable version before page protection is standard procedure, and that's precisely why I did what I did. I could have easily asked Swarm to revert to the last stable version before or after protecting, to the same effect. This was not "gaming of the system" on my part.
- Rather, the above comment is just more evidence that a block for Spacecowboy420, preferably one of indefinite length, is the only real solution here.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Swarm: given this is not a first offense, and the bad faith demonstrated in this responses, is there really any benefit in waiting until the inevitable "next time"? These editors are a time sink and an exasperation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: Unfortunately I was contacted with a straightforward request to reinstate the page protection. Hijiri struck his request and directed me to this thread right as I was protecting the page, just a few moments too late. You may well be right that this is just postponing the inevitable, and if that is the case I will personally follow up with the full force of discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 23:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This certainly isn't your first offence either and this whole report stinks of bad faith. Stop trying to get people blocked, it's not very nice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Fan4Life reported by User:Coolmarc (Result: Voluntary restriction)
- Page
- No Tears Left to Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837701554 by Coolmarc (talk) It is you who is edit warring, if you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page. I am simply defending the last stable, agreed upon version of the page. Even if what you are adding is sourced, it still needs to be discussed."
- Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- 13:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837700252 by Hayman30 (talk)"
- 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "If you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page, don't take it upon yourself to change it. The page has been stable with dance-pop since Friday."
- 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC) ""
- 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Composition */"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837698894 by Hayman30 (talk) After it says that it goes into depth. It at no point describes it as pop and dance-pop. Don't revert again, if you disagree with the source take it to the talk page."
- 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "If you disagree with the source, take it to the talk page."
- 13:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "The source decribes the song as "a weightless mix of dance-pop and slight 90s influences"."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on No Tears Left to Cry. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Constant reverting of other editors without any explanation on talk page with the addition of reliably sourced info to what he/she personally prefers. CoolMarc 14:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I provided an explanation every time. I was preserving the last stable, agreed upon version of the page, whereas you were refusing to discuss your proposed change and instead continually reverted whenever you were reverted. You ignored my request that you take it to the talk page. Fan4Life (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Fan4Life, one user cannot be edit warring with themselves. It takes at least two editors to edit war. Despite what you claimed here, there was no "agreed upon" version of the page. Hayman30 had reverted you before you and Coolmarc started warring, so that's not a stable version at all. I restored dance-pop per what the Forbes source said before that was deemed unfit to use as Hugh McIntyre is an unpaid contributor to Forbes and not a paid editor; of course, then another source was found stating dance-pop by Coolmarc, which you have reverted in your most recent revision. Ss112 14:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that User:Fan4Life is edit warring and is risking a block. (The filer of this report has offered a list of six reverts). There might still be time for Fan4life to promise to take a break from the article. They already have an extensive block log for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was only trying to enforce the policy of discussing proposed changes. I'm willing to take a break from the article if it means I don't get blocked, but I don't think it's fair that Coolmarc is completely getting away with edit-warring while I'm risking a block. Also, why does it matter if the author is a paid editor or not? Fan4Life (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- You were removing sourced content for no reason. I opened a discussion on the talk page after you reverted my edits but you continued to edit war with Marc. Apparently MacIntyre is a website "contributor" so their articles are considered user-generated. Anyways, this is not the place for content disputes; you should have discussed your changes before all of this happened. Hayman30 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life: I have not disagreed over anything, you were removing reliably sourced content with no legitimate explanation even in the talk page discussion hence why you were reverted. Had we been edit warring with you, the article would not now be left in your preferred version. Your edit summaries have been blatant lies:
"If you think the genre should be changed, take it to the talk page, don't take it upon yourself to change it. The page has been stable with dance-pop since Friday
- we changed nothing, disco was added and reliably sourced.After it says that it goes into depth. It at no point describes it as pop and dance-pop. Don't revert again, if you disagree with the source take it to the talk page
another lie, as editors pointed out the article said "perfect pure pop".
- Among other ridiculous edit summaries and explanations, and with 6+ reverts of various editors, it is clear that this is purposely oblivious, disruptive WP:OWN behaviour. By
"the last stable, agreed upon version of the page"
, the user understands: his/her last version of the page. CoolMarc 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life: I have not disagreed over anything, you were removing reliably sourced content with no legitimate explanation even in the talk page discussion hence why you were reverted. Had we been edit warring with you, the article would not now be left in your preferred version. Your edit summaries have been blatant lies:
- You were removing sourced content for no reason. I opened a discussion on the talk page after you reverted my edits but you continued to edit war with Marc. Apparently MacIntyre is a website "contributor" so their articles are considered user-generated. Anyways, this is not the place for content disputes; you should have discussed your changes before all of this happened. Hayman30 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was only trying to enforce the policy of discussing proposed changes. I'm willing to take a break from the article if it means I don't get blocked, but I don't think it's fair that Coolmarc is completely getting away with edit-warring while I'm risking a block. Also, why does it matter if the author is a paid editor or not? Fan4Life (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll close this with no block if User:Fan4Life will agree not to edit the article for one week. They can still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that User:Fan4Life is edit warring and is risking a block. (The filer of this report has offered a list of six reverts). There might still be time for Fan4life to promise to take a break from the article. They already have an extensive block log for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Fan4Life, one user cannot be edit warring with themselves. It takes at least two editors to edit war. Despite what you claimed here, there was no "agreed upon" version of the page. Hayman30 had reverted you before you and Coolmarc started warring, so that's not a stable version at all. I restored dance-pop per what the Forbes source said before that was deemed unfit to use as Hugh McIntyre is an unpaid contributor to Forbes and not a paid editor; of course, then another source was found stating dance-pop by Coolmarc, which you have reverted in your most recent revision. Ss112 14:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: Voluntary restriction. Closed with no block since User:Fan4Life has agreed not to edit the No Tears Left to Cry article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Comefrombeyond reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn in favor of ANI )
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: IOTA (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Comefrombeyond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff, 09:44, 16 April 2018, adding huge bolus of unsourced, promotional content and removed COI, advert templates
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
- diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
- diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
- diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this EWN case from last summer
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)#Huge_primary-sourced_addition_-_what's_useful_here?
Comments:
The EWN case from last summer resulted in protection of the page and this warning of a block if the behavior continued at the user's talk page. Per their contribs, the user vanished after that, and came back recently with more of the same, but worse, trying to force in terribly promotional, unsourced content. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The previous AN3 complaint about Comefrombeyond was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive345#User:Comefrombeyond reported by User:178.78.237.194 (Result: Protected), dating from mid-2017. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Am withdrawing and seeking an indef at ANI. This is appallingly bad behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Axxxion reported by User:LylaSand (Result: Warned)
page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts
Axxxion is topic banned from editing the Syrian Civil War article and any article closely related to the subject matter.
The Page is also under 1 revert rule.
He evaded his topic ban in order to game the rules by reverting 15 minutes past the 24hr 1 revert rule. LylaSand (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @LylaSand: - I don't see any evidence of such a topic ban recorded at WP:EDR. Where did you get that information from? Did you just misread the recent topic ban by NeilN? Swarm ♠ 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Axxion's recent topic ban is only from the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. So the filer is not correct in saying that the ban is from the entire Syrian Civil War. However the SCW article is itself under a 1RR/24 hours restriction which applies to all editors. But is not clear to me that this edit (listed as diff #1 above) is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Result: User:Axxxion is warned they may be blocked if they make any further changes to the headers in the Syrian Civil War article without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Axxxion is reminded that this article falls under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions. Axxxion's topic ban from chemical weapons can if necessary be extended to include the entire Syrian Civil War. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:MMN2001 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- Page
- Enrique Iglesias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- MMN2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837761783 by Chris troutman (talk)Deleting a textual content during a period of seconds says that the text was not even fully read before being removed. This is not normal"
- 21:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837759349 by Chris troutman (talk)In this case, the text should be changed, not completely removed. I'm gonna remove the unaccepted citations. There is no personal research though, is just a simple fact: the existence of something"
- 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837759349 by Chris troutman (talk) Not specified edit removal reasons by editor"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Enrique Iglesias. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 22:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC) "/* free enrique? */ new section"
- Comments:
- This isn't a 3RR violation yet, but MMN2001 probably should be indef-ed based on the content they're repeatedly trying to add, which is definitely WP:OR, and possibly BLP-violating conspiracy theories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Haven't I shown three reversions all within minutes? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need 4 reverts to violate 3RR, and one of the reverts he self-reverted. It doesn't excuse edit-warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Haven't I shown three reversions all within minutes? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The added content is straight-up libellous, poorly sourced, conspiracy theories and edit warring. Take your pick of violation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I blocked the user for edit warring just as this was raised. I'm prepared to give them a second chance as they are new so may not be familiar with everything. I will watch them though, if they carry on the same behaviour once unblocked I'll indef block.--5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NeilN talk to me 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Hippo43 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Comments:
Note that the user is edit warring over the term "misnomer" in the lede in contravention of an outcome of an RfC [21], which was closed just a couple weeks ago by User:Fish and karate. The precise wording of the close was "The consensus here, broadly, is that yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a "misnomer" - in the lede, with further details in the body of the article." (with a further note that the word "misrepresentation" could plausibly be used instead of "misnomer".)
While for the first revert it might have been plausible that Hippo43 was unaware of the RfC (though they should've checked the talk page), this excuse does not work for the subsequent edits which violate 3RR. In particular they were made aware of the RfC and outcome here here and here. Oh, and also here. The user was reverted by multiple users (myself, User:Nihil novi and User:Malik Shabazz.
And on top of that, this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions. The user was made aware of the discretionary sanctions here, yet, after removing the notice (which is their right - but it does serve as acknowledgement that they saw it), they chose to go back and resume the edit war.
So what we have here is edit warring against multiple users, against consensus established by RfC, on an article covered by discretionary sanctions, after having been made aware of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Note also that there's quite a few blocks for edit warring in the block history of the user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I made a number of obviously good faith, measured edits over the last day, and engaged in discussion at the article talk page. Volunteer Marek took exception to them, posting uncivil comments on my talk page, User:A Quest For Knowledge's talk page, and the article talk page.
- I am aware that there was an RfC here, but as I understand it, consensus on one issue, such as an RfC on one article, cannot override community consensus, for example NPOV. Volunteer Marek seems to take the view that the RfC means that the word 'misnomer' must be used in the opening sentence of the article, which is not at all what was discussed in the RfC. I'm really not sure why he is so worked up over this, and has acted like he owns the article. --hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I did not make any uncivil comments on your talk page, nor AQ4K's, or anyone else's - I just notified you of the RfC. Your false accusations don't excuse your actions.
- The wording of the RfC closure is pretty clear. It says there is consensus that the word "misnomer" SHOULD be used. I really don't know how to explain this in any other way, since it's written right there in black and white.
- Claiming that you're going to ignore the outcome of an RfC because "local consensus cannot override NPOV" is like the second lamest excuse for edit warring after "all edits I disagree with are vandalism".
- I'm fine with this being closed if you just revert to the last version (Malik Shabazz's, I believe) before your last reverts and basically stop trying to edit war over the issue. I'm not "worked up", though I am a bit irritated at your propensity to edit war and your willful decision to ignore the obvious existence of an RfC on the topic (sort of hard to have a good faith discussion with someone who basically says 'I'm just going to completely ignore what everyone else thinks and do whatever I want').Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- None of that last comment is true. You seem very agitated, and I don't want to engage with you over this. --hippo43 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Lol. Which part is not true? That the RfC closure - which I quoted - is "not true"? That I'm "fine with this being closed if you just self-revert"? Like what does that mean - that I'm lying or something? Your statement makes no sense and comments along the lines of "you seem very agitated" are both condescending and uncivil which just puts your behavior in even worse light.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- None of that last comment is true. You seem very agitated, and I don't want to engage with you over this. --hippo43 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
And now it seems Hippo34 has decided to do a bit of WP:STALK and revenge-reverting by joining the edit war on another article [22]. Seriously, can someone please take a look at this report and this user's behavior? It's a clear cut case of edit warring against consensus and then he tops it off with other disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:BestHealthGuide reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Topic banned 1 month)
Page: Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BestHealthGuide (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:
(article is under discretionary sanctions and a 1RR restriction)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous 3RR notice for the same article DS notification very recent block for edit warring on exact same article
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] (though with 1RR there may not be time to fully develop a discussion)
Comments:
The user has been edit warring more or less nonstop on the article since it has been created as the numerous warnings and their previous block show.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is not the case, just Volunteer Marek deleted my completely new contribution in a completely new section (Media Coverage) always. Volunter Marek did not answer my discussion points with him on his talk page. I think we first should clarify the discussion, before trying to block other editors.
--BestHealthGuide (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked BestHealthGuide for their username, as there is a website with that name [26]. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Now renamed to User:FrankBierFarmer and unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Topic banned 1 month. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:HappyWaldo (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Comments:
This began when anon 101.179.204.107 removed an uncited claim that "Australian rules football was played abroad in England and Scotland as early as the 1880s". I reverted anon's removal, saying in the edit summary that a cite was needed. Arianewiki1 then reverted me (the first revert of the three listed above), saying "Unexplained revert without edit comment" (but I did add an explanation). I then altered the wording of the original claim with a citation to an historian's book published by University of New South Wales Press, which Arianewiki1 reverted, saying it is not a reliable source (it meets all the criteria of WP:RELIABLE). In the edit summary for Arianewiki1's latest revert, he states "Source does not say this at all. It was Australians playing in England and Scotland." This is a non-sequitur. The source itself states, "... there was a match in London in 1888 between teams from Edinburgh and London Universities. Many of the players were second or third generation Scottish-Australians." In the edit being reverted by Arienwiki1, I summarised the source thusly: "Australian rules football was played outside Australasia as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London". Nothing I have stated here contradicts the material in the cited book. If there remained any doubt in his mind that Australian rules football was played in London in the 1880s, I started a discussion on his talk page with a link to a primary source describing the match in question. I included a warning that he was edit warring. Also, as background, ArienWiki1 has had it out for me me ever since he lost an edit dispute on the Australian rules page in October of last year and then failed in accusing me of edit warring. His recent actions in my view are simple acts of resentment-fuelled trolling. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Editor HappyWaldo behaviour is here quite unacceptable. The original edit had no cites[33], but was reverted by HappyWaldo without even an edit comment as to why.[34]. I reverted this edit stating
Unexplained revert without edit comment. No cite to supports statement. BRD applies to Talkpage.
They should have gone to the Talkpage to discuss, but instead reverted statingrevert was explained, you need to look more closely
This is false, because they never did at all.
- Worse not placing anything in the edit summary is against policy and make editing hard to understand. HappyWaldo has previously done the same thing before here[35], which I also reverted under
Unexplained edit / no edit summary. No consensus. Apply BRD at talkpage
Looking at their history[36] this is a habitual problem - editors cannot read minds. WP:FIES applies here as well as WP:REVTALK.
- Yet the edit here says :
Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London. being Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.
However, this is plainly incorrect, as the Trove reference says:Australians residing in London and Australians residing in Scotland.
[37] The statement implies: "teams from English and Scottish universities competed" which is not factual and looks like more like an implication to Promote. Hence, the statement by meReference statement is dubious and actually looks like personal research. Original revert say something different. Again. BRD applies to Talkpage.
[38]
- They then go to my Talkpage, and tell me to "Learn the facts" but still offer no verifiable evidence that the wording is factual. They should have applied WP:BRD when two different editor challenge, however HappyWaldo view is seemingly it is just everyone else's responsibility.
- This editor now also claims
(source meets WP:RELIABLE (written by trained historian, published by one of australia's leading universities) take your issues to talk page please.
But this is surely just an 'opinion' and after trying to get access to the source, find that it cannot be confirmed. Even looking at the related Australian rules football in Scotland tells a different story, but this is very poorly cited. (Hence, the added templates.)
- Also the statement above
I included a warning that he was edit warring.
being this [39] can hardly be construed as a 'warning'.
- Finally, HappyWaldo looks like they are 'gatekeeping', with WP:OWN and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR In this Australian rules football article, and gets aggressive when challenged or does not explain reverts. e.g. This kind of behaviour was pointed out here before.[40]& [41], and on article talkpage here.[42]
- Examples of other similar reverts, especially biting newbies, appear here.[43], [44], [45], [46] , [47]. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- My original revert of the anon IP DID have a comment as to why. You even failed to link to my revert in your reply above (this is the correct diff. See my comment: "cite needed"). Instead, you linked the IP's same edit twice. I will assume good faith and put this down to confusion on your part.
- As for your analysis of the Trove article (Trove is an online newspaper archive, the actual source is The Age), you conveniently leave out the part about the teams being "chiefly composed of medical students". I grabbed this one from the first page of search results simply to persuade you that, yes, students studying at English and Scottish universities played a match of Australian rules football in London in the 1880s (as my original edit stated, backed up by the reliable, university-published source). Here is yet another, more detailed newspaper article describing the Australian rules football match that took place in London in 1888 "between teams of 16 Australians from the London and Edinburgh Universites". This not WP:PROMOTE, but cold hard fact. The IP is objectively wrong in his original edit summary, and you have wasted your time siding with them. As for WP:OWN, I unpacked each alleged example on your talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both users Warned. You're both off-base, but HappyWaldo appears to be editing in good faith, whereas I cannot say the same for Ariane, who appears to be seriously battlegrounding. @HappyWaldo:, you literally can't claim "cite needed" as a justification for adding unsourced content.[48] See WP:BURDEN. If an editor removes unsourced content because they claim it's "not true", you can't demand a source from them. The burden of proof is on you if you want to restore it. So, it's hard to take your side when you were wrong to begin with and it takes two equally-guilty sides to edit war. That said, you subsequently made efforts to rectify the lack of a source. @Arianewiki1:, your reverts made no sense whatsoever, and it does appear that Waldo's allegations of some sort of personal grudge are accurate, because you don't seem to be willing to cooperate with them in good faith, instead choosing to edit war, baselessly. "Unexplained revert without edit comment" (not even true) "BRD applies to Talkpage" (you were the one who violated BRD) "Original revert did not have edit comment,which is against policy" (both of those statements are untrue) "Reference statement is dubious and actually looks like personal research" (a vague dismissal of a reference without anything specific that's wrong with it) "Original revert say something different" (this statement literally makes no sense) "Again. BRD applies to Talkpage." (again, you breached BRD originally, after which it became invalid to cite). If I see any more of these vague, nonsensical edit summaries used to justify edit warring with this user, you will be subject to severe blocking per WP:GRUDGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:DE. Swarm ♠ 00:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. The statement is this "
"Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London."
but this implies they are English or Scottish and it was somehow promoted by the universities. That is not factual. Yet it is now perfectly fine to add an unverifiable source/cite, and yet quote another cite (Trove/The Age) that was not placed as a reference. So far you have not engaged the talkpage, but continue to inappropriately argue about everything except the issue of presumed WP:3RR, in which, you have actually have just stopped short of violating. (It could bite you instead BTW.) e.g. - Diffs of the HappyWaldo reverts:
- There is no confusion here. The IP rightly removed the uncited text, but you reverted it but didn't add a cite. Worst you did not explain the reversion. When challenged, you instead added an unverifiable reference, and then try to peddle another presumed verifying source that does not actually support the given statement. This fails as a reliable source. Bleating about everything else is just irrelevant.
- @Swarm: in response to your warning and to be more explicit. IMO, this editor needs to examine their Own, Own behavior and likely 'gatekeeping' of the Australian rules football and other related pages. Editors should not have to go through the gauntlet every time to get 'permission' to edit nor have to face complete lack of any relevant explanations as to why their edits are reverted. Many other editors do this kind of practice and pretend to maintain articles all under the veil of protecting their own contributions. They then often will become really prickly when challenged, and will start to distinct display own and own behavior, and even simple bias. (A perfect example is your recent edits on National Gallery of Victoria, where the editing style in question e.g. Not leaving edit comments was challenged and the atypical glib replies. See [52].
- I say:
"Unexplained edits / no edit summary. No consensus. No cites to support. Apply BRD at talkpage. Please follow edit procedures.)"
[53] after these 16 edits [54] The response was this"added citations. all i did was reorder and slightly reword some things anyway. genuinely sorry our last encounter has gnawed at you this much."
[55] Yet after this we get exactly the same continuing on with behaviour for another 22 edits. - Defending myself, Swarm says that the: "Original revert did not have edit comment,which is against policy", as against BRD but WP:REVEXP says otherwise. How are you supposed to discuss edits on the Talkpage if they don't even explain it? HW says above
"The IP is objectively wrong in his original edit summary, and you have wasted your time siding with them."
, but that isn't true. The only comment to revert was "cite needed" then allege at me to "Learn the facts "[56] and also have them say: "revert was explained, you need to look more closely"[57] Again. How do you discuss an edit on a talkpage with such confusing statements, then now accuse me of having some kind of vendetta, grudge, starting a battleground or making disruptive edits? - The IP was in their rights and followed policy to remove the uncited text, and as WP:CE says that it should:"...provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it." Nothing actually verified HP's assertion. I've followed policy as best as I could.
- The way I see it, this issue here is more about getting someone punished (me) for daring to standup against such behaviours - and then instead dubiously start accuse me some underhanded behaviour to discredit my position.
- Yeah, right. The statement is this "
- Important Note: HappyWaldo has since made this edit.[58] This is a non-consensus edit and simply clearly avoids the talkpage. It is plainly actually wrong as explained above. Worse the cite cannot be verified. User:Swarm please advise on the next course of action here, as it seems just like deliberate provocation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- One other user made an edit to the page hours ago that I did not revert, because it was an improvement. I am only interested in improving the page and keeping up its quality. Other editors are welcome to do the same. You are more interested in acting on your WP:GRUDGE against me, and coming up with nonsensical reasons to edit war. Also Swarm, sorry to drag you back into this mess, but Arianewiki1 keeps adding a template stating that the article "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". Given Arian's poor track record in assessing the reliability of cites, this appears to be another way to act out his grudge. I asked him on his talk page to list all of the "dubious cites" he mentioned in this edit summary, telling him that he may be banned if he continues to act in bad faith, but he reverted my inquiry with another nonsensical edit summary. He is not interested in backing up his claim, just being a disruptive troll. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Important Note: HappyWaldo has since made this edit.[58] This is a non-consensus edit and simply clearly avoids the talkpage. It is plainly actually wrong as explained above. Worse the cite cannot be verified. User:Swarm please advise on the next course of action here, as it seems just like deliberate provocation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Zemora95 reported by User:Zero0000 (Result: Moved to ANI)
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: Zemora95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is not an edit war. Zemora95 is a new editor, almost all of whose edits are highly politically charged and usually completely unacceptable. But that's not the reason I'm reporting it. The reason is that almost all these edits have dishonest edit summaries like "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar". The last type of editor we need around here is a liar. In my opinion, an immediate permanent block is appropriate. Zerotalk 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Denver Indiana reported by User:Attack Ramon (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denver Indiana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [59]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Blocked indefinitely Sock. NeilN talk to me 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Surtsicna reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: )
- Page
- Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- The existence of unsourced info in other articles does not justify the inclusion of unsourced claims in this article. WP:BLP is clear: unsourced info in biographies of living people should be removed on sight
- emoving a completely unsourced section from a biography of a living person, per WP:BLP; please do not reintroduce unsourced claims into a BLP
- 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "You are now being extremely disruptive. The ahnentafel is unsourced and as such cannot be in the article per a very strict policy. Copyright violations are also entirely unacceptable. Further violations of copyright and WP:BLP will be reported."
- 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Add the sources or leave the info out. It is not that difficult."
- 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Biography */ It's a blatant copyright violation. I am fixing it by removing it. Please do not reintroduce unsourced claims and obvious copyright violations."
- 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837880589 by Davey2010 (talk) The WP:BLP policy is quite clear about this. There is nothing obvious about a certain Valerie Glassborow being this baby's mother's father's mother. For all I know that could be the name of a mass murderer. Cite it or leave it out."
- 15:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Ancestry */ Please stop reintroducing unsourced content into the article."
- 15:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Biography */ Unsourced but I sense a copyright violation here."
- 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 837870800 by LordOham (talk) completely unsourced"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- 16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "/* April 2018 */ r"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor is edit warring over the template as well as the content,
They're removing the Ancestry template citing it being unsourced/BLPVIO[65] however as the template is used on every article I would assume the template isn't a BLPVIO and it's also worth noting these templates are never sourced (I did state whether they should or not is a another discussion for another day and that they should start an RFC on it[66][67])
They also objected to the content which at the time didn't have a source so I obviously reinstated it with a source however they still continued to revert,
As the template is currently used on tons of articles I feel an RFC would be more appropriate instead of removing the whole thing from one article, The cited content isn't perfect however the editor should've helped source it instead of simply reverting and expecting everyone else to source it for them, I also ended up hitting 4 reverts on the article and immediately self reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted blatant violations of copyright and WP:BLP policy. I should not have to start an RFC on whether it is acceptable to claim that a certain Valerie Glassborow is the subject's mother's father's mother without citing a single source. It is absurd. For all I know that could be the name of a mass murderer. Furthermore, I am shocked that someone who has been using Wikipedia for five years does not understand why it is unacceptable to reinsert obvious copyright violations. Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, I shouldn't source it myself. I remove copyright violation and unsourced info from BLP as soon as I see it and will continue to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- As I've said as the template and that name is on all articles it makes more sense to start an RFC instead of removing it from one article...., Google turns up nothing inregards to this supposed "copyright violation" - Had you included the source then the copyvio side wouldn't be here now....., Regardless of copyvios and unsourced content you should've gone to the talkpage as required by BRD (Copyvio not so much had you provided the source of the copyvio). –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note Earwigs Copyvio Detector hasn't picked up any copyright violations (It does say 14% however that's the tool matching "Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" ....). –Davey2010Talk 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Look harder. A simple copy-paste is a copyright violation even if you cite the source. If you do not know this, any large contribution of yours should be checked without delay. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I did - As can be seen not all of that text was a copyvio just a fraction of it was, Had you said in your second edit summary "This was taken from X" I would've done a side by side comparison ....., After your first revert I obviously did search for the text but as noted not the correct bit (because quite rightly I assumed the whole thing was a copyvio not just a sentence), That still doesn't excuse your template edit warring tho. –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- You know, you can admit to being wrong without blaming the other person for your mistake. Anyway, reinsertion of unsourced claims into a biography of a living person is what is inexcusable, especially when the argument is that it is done elsewhere too. Unsourced information in BLPs is a serious problem, not something you get to perpetuate by saying it exists elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Except I'm not wrong ...... and I'm not the one to blame either .... As I said as per BRD you should've gone to the talkpage and raised your concerns ...., True but on the other hand (and as I have said repeatedly) you should've gone to the template talkpage and raised your concerns (and started an RFC)) instead of edit warring -
- If other editors thought the template content was a BLPVIO/sourcing they would've removed it or sourced it years ago ..... and on a technicality you should've removed the name from the template and again gone to the talkpage instead of removing that one template (which essentially means that "violation" is still present on tons of other articles),
- Which ever way you look at this you completely ignored WP:BRD and repeatedly edit warred instead of going to either the article talkpage or the template talkpage - There was no justification for the edit war (regardless of copyvio issues (which as proven was only 5%) and BLPVIO/sourcing issues (which again was template issues not article issues). –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since the WP:BLP policy is quite clear ("Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") and the copyright violation was obvious (a mere copy-paste), I think this discussion has run its course. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly so you should've removed the name from that template ..... Removing the template absolutely does nothing to rectify or resolve the the main "BLP" issue here, If someone vandalised a template would you remove the whole template from the article or would you remove the vandalism ? ..... The former I hope. –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- No part of the template was sourced. What's the point of removing a single name? Are you saying I should have removed the names one by one? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the fact you had an issue with one name which is where all of this stems from, So then you should've added a source or as I said gone to the talkpage and raised your concerns, You did neither and had I not come here you would've carried on revertingand it's only thanks to me self reverting that you stopped..... I'll stop replying now as we're just going around in circles. –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- No part of the template was sourced. What's the point of removing a single name? Are you saying I should have removed the names one by one? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly so you should've removed the name from that template ..... Removing the template absolutely does nothing to rectify or resolve the the main "BLP" issue here, If someone vandalised a template would you remove the whole template from the article or would you remove the vandalism ? ..... The former I hope. –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since the WP:BLP policy is quite clear ("Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") and the copyright violation was obvious (a mere copy-paste), I think this discussion has run its course. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Copyvio and BLP reverts are protected under WP:3RRNO, but User:Surtsicna, it's still good practice to cite WP:3RRNO in your edit summaries that exceed 3RR. User:Davey2010, a restoring editor has the burden of proof to verify that the restored information does not violate WP:BLPVIO. AlexEng(TALK) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- AlexEng - If one has an issue with something in the template then you remove that issue from the template and go to the talkpage .... You don't remove the whole template altogether, I'm sorry but BLP doesn't cover this sort of reverting - Common sense would tell you to go to the template talkpage and seek consensus or clarification on the name(s) in question ..... –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- As I said above if someone vandalised a template would you remove the whole template or would you remove the vandalism from the template ? .... Same issue here - Don't remove the template - Just remove the offending issue (or if you want it sourced then source it!). –Davey2010Talk 23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not have a problem with one name. I have a problem with the entire section because all of it is unsourced. WP:BLP is clear: you do not go to a template talk page to seek consensus or clarification; you remove the unsourced information on sight. If you want it back, cite a source. Our policy on copyright violation is just as clear. And no, it is not up to me to "source it", but up to whoever adds or restores the material. AlexEng and I have both explained that to you already. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Make up your mind one minute you have an issue with the "Valerie" name and now it's the entire thing ..... Do you know what you have an issue with ?, WP:SOFIXIT or failing that blank the template - That being said templates are never sourced atleast to my knowledge ...... You have an issue so you can fix it period - BURDEN applies to articles not templates. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
-
- Yeah I've suddenly realised it wasn't a template per se .... But still whether it's blanking or hidden-commenting out you still should've gone to the talkpage where myself and other editors could've discussed it, I still maintain tho that templates don't need to be sourced, Anyway I feel like this discussion's going no where so shall stop replying, –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to note Surtsicna has since reverted 2 editors who have reinserted the template and again hasn't gone to the talkpage, –Davey2010Talk 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Vortekzx07 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Indian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vortekzx07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried to discuss with user on their talk page. NeilN warned them after I gave up.
Comments:
- Editor removes verified content with inapplicable arguments. I don't really care if you block them or not, but this has to stop--maybe they need to hear it from someone else, not a white supremacist like me. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely The diff in your comment is inexcusable. NeilN talk to me 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)