Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285

User:USAismisunderstood reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Operation Northwoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: USAismisunderstood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Subject warned previously but persists. Jusdafax 03:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Stop undoing my edits before you read the actual documents. Then give me an actual reason why the edits should be undone."
2. 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Then the editor is wrong. Just because one of the editors interpreted it differently doesn't mean it is true. Actually read the documents, and then talk to me about undoing my edits with a factual reasons."
3. 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "I now have a source that is reliable. It is the pdf of the released operation northwoods documents. I have read through them many times, and they support my edits. Please stop undoing my edits, and actually read the documents"
4. 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667128420 by GB fan (talk)"
5. 19:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667079356 by Ravensfire (talk)"
6. 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667030134 by GB fan (talk)"
7. 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666957777 by Foxj (talk)"
8. 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666941711 by Foxj (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Northwoods. (TW)"
2. 10:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "/* What you can do */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk page discussion

Comments:

I have added diffs from the report I made to this report as they have edit warred after this report was made. I have attempted to get them to explain on their talk page but they just continue to revert to their preferred version. -- GB fan 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted them again in the past few hours. I believe that totals at least seven reverts by the subject. Jusdafax 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up an SPI also as a new editor has appeared and on their first edit they reverted to the same version, see [[1]]. -- GB fan 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

39.53.177.93 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Kevin Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 39.53.177.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Comments: Obvious abuse.

This is blanking. Mass blanking can be considered vandalism and doesn't have to be reported to the 3rr noticeboard. But anyways,* Page protected by User:Malcolmxl5.ABCDEFAD_✉ 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed what was going on and have semi-protected for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: semi-protected)

Page: Kevin Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 (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]
5. [16]
6. [17]
7. [18]
8. [19]

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

Comments: Crazy blanking of this page from an IPv6 address. Perhaps connected to 39.53.177.93 but nuts none-the-less.

I think this is obvious meatpuppetry. @SpyMagician: As I said before, blanking can be considered vandalism and page is protected. You don't need multiple reports of the same page.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 21:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ABCDEFAD. But for the record, my initial report was based on one IP address and then about 2 hours later, a second report was filed based on another, IPv6 address. No harm, no foul but just clarifying my context in reporting. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: can you block the ip under block evasion?--ABCDEFAD_✉ 22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The IPv6 later jumped to 2001:590:4802:301:9c90:5db9:64e1:5369 and I blocked that one for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mendess55 reported by User:Zickzack (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Zeybeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendess55 (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. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

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

Comments:

I have tried to explain to the user - who is probably acting out of his understanding of good faith - what makes a reference. He does not seem to get it. Maybe just an official message would help. -- Zz (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the user name; User:Mendess55 with TWO Ss. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned Zz, new editors need to be warned of our WP:3RR policy before being reported here. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:KHLrookie reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:
User made an edit to American football, a good article, without understanding how the inbox classifies what 'worldwide' means (it means it has a 'presence'. As American football is played worldwide, the infobox summary is appropriate). Despite his edit being reverted by two users (myself and BilCat, and urged to take this discussion to the talk page, he has persisted in reverting to versions. His most recent revert did not even include a summary. Toa Nidhiki05 23:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Tadeusz Nowak reported by User:Widefox (Result: Stale)

Page

Transracial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tadeusz Nowak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666952967 by Widefox (talk). Rv attempt to push WP:HOAX currently subject to AfD"
2. 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "rm attempt to give WP:NEO hoax (currently subject to an AfD) undue prominence"
3. 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Incorrect edit to a disambiguation page on Transracial. (TW)"
2. 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Transracial. (TW)"
3. 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Transracial. (TW)"
4. 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit summaries */ dab page"

(disruption, battleground)

1. 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ edit warring"
2. 21:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ justify it"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Prev justification for my analysis, as pointed to and awaiting any reply. [37]

Instead, WP:FORUMSHOP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination) Widefox; talk 21:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Widefox has engaged in aggressive harrassment, stalking and an attempt to game the system (as this faux and dishonest report is an example of) for hours now, in his attempt to push an article about a known hoax (currently promoted by 4chan), subject to an onging AfD, by giving the hoax article an aggressively undue prominence in a disambiguation page, and incorrectly placing the only established meaning of the word in a "see also" section. I have correctly reverted this borderline-vandalism exactly twice. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drama aside, have you used the talk page as I have, and as I asked you? If not, why not? Instead, you created a FORUMSHOP at AfD (which may be procedurally closed) adding to the disruptive editing.
• Your edit history show long-term disruption e.g. Historikerstreit etc
• Several editors have asked you to use edit summaries, but you've refused. Widefox; talk 21:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only disruptive editor here is you, as indeed evidenced by your latest comment. You can wikilawyer as much as you want, the fact is that you engaged in disruptive edits to push a hoax already subject to an AfD, edit warring, and aggressive harrassment and stalking on talk pages, and now even here. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The logical flaw in that argument is that I've already marked the dab for cleanup (and noted the NEO) before you made your conspiracy theory based accusations and edit warring. Widefox; talk 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I find it rather comical that a user who has made exactly the same number of both reverts and total edits on the page in question (to give a hoax article likely to be deleted and subject to an AfD undue prominence, clearly contrary to MOS) reports the other editor for "edit warring" (after hours of harrassing the editor on his talk page). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, except that ignores the fact I flagged-up the NEO first at the dab, my edit was discussed on the talk beforehand, and you ignored all attempts to discuss at the talk even after multiple prompting and warning, so I reported your edit warring here. Widefox; talk 04:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

After my initial good faith edit (not a revert, but a normal edit), you template spammed my user talk page with a patronizing "Notice: Incorrect edit" template instead of raising any issue you might have had in a constructive manner, and you continued template spamming my talk page with numerous templates in an aggressive manner. Also, placing the only established meaning of the word in a "see also" section instead of the actual list of meanings, and only placing the contested hoax article (subject to an AfD) in the proper list, seems both clearly incorrect and not constructive to me. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Widefox's edits appear to be aimed at propagating a hoax. They look and smell like vandalism to me. -- haminoon (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Haminoon that's the same logical flaw above. Care to give an edit diff for the "vandalism"? I noted the NEO on the dab before both of you. While you may be validly removing a hoax article (I do not know), the same logic is above - I've marked on the dab that it's a NEO, but the dab has other valid meanings, so both of you countering the hoax is misplaced at the dab, and unrelated. Widefox; talk 23:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a diff: [38]. You've moved the only accepted meaning of the word "transracial" down into the "see also" section and added a completely absurd definition of the word. -- haminoon (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Check the diff again - which word? I didn't add a word in that diff. Further, it has comments explaining it per MOSDAB! Check WP:MOSDAB - all my edits are in line with that, and the reasoning explicitly explained in the edit diff and on the talk page (which the two of you are only now using). A belated bogus defence of fighting "vandalism" doesn't justify edit warring, and detracts from what appears to be a valid hoax deletion elsewhere. Widefox; talk 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Haminoon, unless you've got a real vandalism diff, suggest you withdraw the accusation promptly. BTW, these exact same (WP:PTM) issues came up by other experienced dab editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial due to it being an adjective. Widefox; talk 00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(User:Cwobeel if referring to me) Hardly - I used the talk page before anyone else was on the dab. There's many editors trying to delete the NEO, so?, the dab has been there a year. Widefox; talk 01:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(if referring to User:Haminoon) WP:VAND explicitly states not to accuse editors in good standing as it's a personal attack, and they've provided no diff for any of these multiple accusations. Suggest they strike all these factually incorrect accusations here, at the RfD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15 and anywhere else. Widefox; talk 04:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I accept that Widefox wasn't vandalising. In the context of a number of editors trying to insert a deliberate falsehood into Wikipedia I don't think blocking anyone involved in 3RR violations here will do any good. -- haminoon (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stale —Darkwind (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:86.82.44.193 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Erlang (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.82.44.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Removed a reference to a highly unknown (in-)formalism. At minimum it would need to be confirmed by the Erlang authors.
2. This is rewriting history. It needs to be confirmed by the authors of Erlang. At minimum, I would expect them to answer CSP or pi-Calculus. Not the unknown Actor model nobody knew, or knows, about.
3. Find a quote where the authors of Erlang discuss Hewitt's Actor Model.
4. Cherry picking. Hoare is mentioned several times in Armstrong's thesis, Hewitt is not. It's based on CSP as by your article. I included the reference to CSP, the Actor Model is discussed there.

A freshly-minted IP editor who has hit bright-line 4RR in six hours with their first four edits. They asked for sources, they were given sources, they kept on regardless.

(Ignore the indented paras unless you care about the underlying content issue)

Erlang (programming language) is a programming language noted for its particular focus on concurrent programming. Concurrent programming is complex and has a substantial literature around it. One of the conceptual means to achieve it is the 'Actor model', published in 1973 by Hewitt. This repeated removal is based on the claim that Erlang does not (contrary to a large number of available sources) use this Actor model. Another well-known and often cited model is CSP, in 1978 by CAR Hoare.

Erlang post-dates Actor by some decades. The Actor model was reasonably well-known by the time of Erlang and was in use for a number of platforms. There was even an (obscure) programming language in the early '90s called "Actor" itself. Significantly cut-down, but it did borrow aspects of the Actor model (and a lot of Smalltalk, which is also related). Despite this, there is a broadly held view that Erlang's developers were at least unaware of the 1970s Actor work, although IMHO, this stretches credibility.

This is irrelevant. The point is that either by influence or by independent parallel evolution, Erlang now uses a model of concurrency which matches that theorized originally as Actor. Considerable sourcing attests to this.

The IP editor began by removing the simple and unsourced, although uncontentious, statement "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model." That is (per much policy) reasonable editing. However their edit summary has two problems: Actor is emphatically not "a highly unknown (in-)formalism", it is basic undergraduate knowledge to any recent (post 1990s?) CS student. Nor does WP:V on WP require that, "it would need to be confirmed by the Erlang authors" – we are happy to accept WP:RS.

To improve the article, I restored this and added a reference. It's a source that's moderately well-known in Erlang teaching as it's a readable explanation of the situation.

This was removed again as "This is rewriting history. It needs to be confirmed by the authors of Erlang. At minimum, I would expect them to answer CSP or pi-Calculus. Not the unknown Actor model nobody knew, or knows, about." As before, re RS rather than authors. Although CSP is the first "standard model" for concurrency that's taught to undergrads, this is emphatically and obviously not the way that Erlang does things.

If the IP editor wants a "horse's mouth" source, I gave them one as a second reference, from Armstrong (creator of Erlang) with a direct quote to that effect. They removed that too.

The IP editor is new and AGF'ed ignorant of practices here. However when they revert as fast as another editor adds the sources they previously wanted (but then ignore) it's hard to do much else. I notice they've since (after 3RR) made a talk: comment, but it's well-hidden as a comment to a 5 year old dead thread with a confusing title, Talk:Erlang_(programming_language)#History_accourding_to_J.C3.B6rg_Mittag. A comment that even begins, "I am in a revert war at the moment.", which is hardly encouraging for someone willing to discuss their position. In the meantime though, going straight to 4RR from a throwaway IP account now makes it impossible for another editor to do any constructive work on the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from User:86.82.44.193: I haven't reverted the latest == User:Catty319 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked) ==. I have adapted it to reflect that, as the author of Erlang admits, it was inspired by the Occam language and CSP. The Actor Model by Hewitt is mostly unknown, as can also be observed in the thesis of the author of Erlang where Hewitt isn't mentioned even once and Hoare is. The Actor Model by Hewitt is mostly philosophy and has no formal standing, is hardly discussed in academia, moreover the author of the Actor Model is involved in highly contentious research without fundamental grounding such as inconsistency logics, disproving Goedel, and -more recently- the invention of Actorscript (ActorScript™ extension of C#®, Java®, Objective C®, JavaScript®, and SystemVerilog using iAdaptive™ concurrency for antiCloud™ privacy and security) (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01147821) which he doesn't get through thorough peer-reviewed channels; Hewitt is widely known for making wild claims. The Actor Model doesn't exist except for a collection of incoherent ideas. The technical report mentioned by Armstrong isn't Hewitt's actor model but one loosely defined upon it. I am sorry for the confusion, but Hoare has infinitely higher standing than Hewitt, even if the wikipedia page on the Actor Model doesn't reflect it. - Concluding: My edits are only to reflect that to the best of our knowledge Erlang is based on the highly technical research done with CSP and the occam language (as the author of Erlang, Armstrong, admits in the paper Andy Dingley mentions) and not on philosophy and wild claims made by Hewitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.44.193 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

" I haven't reverted the latest edit."

Four times now you have removed the text, "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model.". Whatever else you might have done to change the references added, you have removed this statement four times. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. With good reason. It now reads that Erlang was based on Occam and CSP. That I did it four times is meaningless, please stick to the discussion whether it is reasonable. As I stated, Hewitt is well known for making wild claims and coming with wild theories with little formal backing. You cannot possibly compare CSP to the Actor Model, which is an exercise in informal thought. CSP is very hard technical work backed by tons of research; in contrast, the Actor Model is an unknown informal thought experiment with little backing except for some master's and phd work and all professors have that. There simply is no comparison. The so called "Actor Model" is now mentioned on the CSP page, which already is stretching its importance.

Please note that, as you said, the so called "Actor Model" wasn't known by the author neither mentioned in his thesis. And I, who has be following academic research on concurrency theory for twenty years, have only heard from it since last week. It really is a highly informal unknown formalism pushed by an author who makes wild claims. Sorry. The reverts were for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.44.193 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The fact that you did it four times is exactly the point. A determination of whether you were edit warring or broke the three-revert rule does not take into account who is "right", who is "wrong", or whether your edits are "reasonable", the point is to talk about it rather than repeat the same changes over and over. Furthermore, you should have had this discussion on the article's talk page instead of trying to conduct it through edit summaries and here on the edit warring noticeboard after the edit war occurred. —Darkwind (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:59.182.176.230 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Kamala Nehru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

59.182.176.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC) " "
2. 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Thomas, this is being discussed. Do not interfere."
3. 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Try and be civil, also read WP:OWN"
4. 09:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "That is just your view, Who are you anyway?"
5. 09:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Not copied, summarized. And factual."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[40]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly adding long unencyclopaedic and POV excerpts from a book (excerpts that are not verifiable, and with no other sources), on the article about Indira Gandhi's mother. Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, see User_talk:NeilN#Kamala_Nehru. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

... and still edit warring. _Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours —Darkwind (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.215.181 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Erlang (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Westland Wessex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (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. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Restoration of unsourced and incorrect content "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model." Also WP:BITEing new user:86.82.44.193 who is an academic researcher on concurrency theory for twenty years and so knows about Erlang. Erlang is based on the CSP and the occam language not this Actor model. It is even questionable if this "Actor model" deserves all the coverage it is given on Wiki.

Dingley kept restoring this content with no attempt at discussion. 86.82.44.193 started a discussion at the article talk: page but Dingley ignored that and preferred to keep warring.

At Westland Wessex he persistently deleted a standard section linking to another article. He also deleted the hidden comment on the page about the importance of this section.

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

This linked section has been removed four times now. It has been restored by two independent editors. Both of them user:BilCat and user:MilborneOne are established aircraft editors on Wiki and MilborneOne is an admin. No discussion by Dingley, he just likes to edit-war. 82.132.215.181 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The reporting IP is warring just as guilty on the Erlang (programming language). He also notified Andy by leaving a barnstar with the warning hidden inside the barnstar coding. Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• 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. —Darkwind (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Already blocked)

Page: The Big Bang Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 (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. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Comments: In clear violation of 3RR.

• Already blocked —Darkwind (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Bashirmsaad reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Faruk Malami Yabo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bashirmsaad (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 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements & Awards */"
   3. 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements and awards */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 13:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
   5. 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   6. 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   8. 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   9. 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   10. 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   11. 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   12. 13:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   13. 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   14. 14:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
   15. 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Faruk Malami Yabo. (TW)"
2. 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@Pishcal: removed swathes of promotional, resume-style text from this article, but this user is continuing to readd it. I've warned them about WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not for resumes, but they continued to revert despite a 3RR warning. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has not attempted to resolve the dispute in any form and has failed to communicate with anyone despite notices / warnings. Pishcal — ♣ 02:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The warnings included subsequent text about why it was inappropriate, and I also gave them notice of 3RR- if they'd bothered to read it, then I wouldn't have reported them. Also, these additions are so ridiculously promotional that any decent editor can see why they're wrong- edit warring to spam a page is never acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Pishcal (t c) meant that the editor you reported, Bashirmsaad, has failed to communicate. —Darkwind (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —Darkwind (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Joseph2302, I was referring to the user reported, not to you. Sorry about the confusion, I suppose "the editor in question" was a bit ambiguous. Pishcal — ♣ 12:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2.126.189.105 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Personal shopping assistant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.126.189.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]
5. [58]
6. [59]
7. [60]
8. [61]
9. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Comments: Obvious abuse of system. Also check user’s talk page where they are constantly blanking warnings and such and replacing content with “fuck off”.

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for 31 hours by Crazycomputers. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Page protected)

Page

When contact changes minds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Popular press */ Restore necessary attribution, remove implication that piece was published on behalf of the mag, undo improper excessive emphasis of low quality sourcing"
2. 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667275377 by David Eppstein (talk) You removed all of the explanatory WSJ material as well, and you have no basis for giving the crappier source more weight"
3. 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Popular press */ Trim Singal material; user knows there is neither a policy justification nor even a false consensus to skew the weight in this way"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "/* WSJ editorial is clearly entitled to far more weight than a single recent college grad with no experience and weak credentials */"

Comments:

Straight off a block for edit warring at this very article [64], Factchecker is right back at it, with three reverts in ~12 hours. It's not a 3RR violation -- but it is edit-warring per WP:EW, which says quite clearly that a violation can consist of fewer than 3 reverts. Again, it's the very same article where Factchecker's edit-warring led to a week-long block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to a weight-neutral version while a discussion, which Nomoskedasticity has never bothered with, continues. Nomo, meanwhile, prefers drive-by reverts with no discussion nor even a stated justification. This is a simple attempt to avoid the losing end of a content dispute by removing another editor from it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomo's latest participation at talk page (today): [65]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your entire participation over the entire dispute has been to say, on precisely two occasions and without any elaboration whatsoever, that you agree with David. That's what I was referring to as not participating. That also includes your pithy but eminently unhelpful edit summaries, including "yep, I saw [the noticeboard discussion] [but decided to ignore it completely and resume edit-warring]". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for 72 hours. Yes, this is still edit warring. Any purported motives for filing this report aside, I am not going to privilege one side in this content dispute by selectively blocking the editor who's done the most reverts, and I am also not going to block all of you. —Darkwind (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:179.234.74.94 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page

Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

179.234.74.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) to 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 21:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Portugal. (TW)"
2. 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Portugal. (TW)"
3. 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Portugal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been edit warring disruptively by adding unsourced changes to the article and has even mounted to sockpuppetry with Moonnastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. @Callmemirela: The edits you reverted did not fall into any of the exceptions to the three-revert rule, and you reverted on this article six times in just over 25 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked Callmemirela for reasons stated on their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:RexxS (Result: Page protected)

Page

Wikipedia:Red link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this is the edit that removed the text on 29 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Robsinden's first revert to re-add the text 14:24, 16 June 2015
2. Robsinden's second revert to re-add the text 09:12, 17 June 2015
3. Robsinden's third revert to re-add the text 09:16, 17 June 2015
4. Robsinden's fourth revert to re-add the text 14:00, 17 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Robsinden warned by Softlavender after Robsinden's third revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Changes needed et seq)

Comments:

Within the space of 24 hours User:Robsinden has four times restored text that was originally deleted by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and subsequently deleted by Montanabw (x2) and Softlavender. The page was then protected in the wrong version by Ritchie333 to stop the edit-war. Robsinden has edit-warred after a warning and against three other editors to force his preferred version into the page. No matter the rights and wrongs of the edit (currently debated at the Talk page), edit-warring is not the means by which editors should be conducting their disputes. This a clear breach of a bright line after a warning and any editor who shows such contempt for our normal behavioural expectations should be sanctioned to provide the solution. That would allow full protection to be lifted from an important guideline page and allow normal editing to resume. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's clearly not the wrong version. Text was removed without discussion, and in fact didn't make any sense, because there is a subsequent clause referring to navboxes thereafter. It's not just my preferred version, it's the version that has been stable for 5 years. Okay, I may have overstepped the reverting, but was feeling very frustrated yesterday by users who I felt were gaming the system for their own POV and then accusing me of writing guidelines to fit my view, when all I was trying to do was to keep the guideline at the status quo. Anyway, there is now a discussion in place, so hopefully we can all move on constructively. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected —Darkwind (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:M.srihari reported by User:Jaaron95 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Supercarrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

M.srihari (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 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667341162 by Nick Thorne (talk)removed disruptive edit . the discussion is going on and starting a edit dispute is actually not good for a "experienced"(??) editor"
   2. 14:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "minor edit"
   3. 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666389041 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
   2. 12:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666389272 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
   3. 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667337783 by M.srihari (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) on Talk:Supercarrier "/* Threaded Discussion */ Reply"

Comments:

The user has also edit warred in Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. Previous block did not render anything good. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A administrator whom I know, MilborneOne advised me not to make any further edits(during a dispute in the supercarrier) until a consensus is arrived upon the issue. But now, when the discussion is going on whether to include Kuznetsov,Vishal,etc. is going on, Two editors removed these references without any consensus. I was actually temporarily absent during that time. This led to these series of edits. So, If my edit is disruptive, I wish similar action to be taken on those disruptive editors too.M.srihari (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks – It looks like M.srihari is never going to let go of this article. He gets credit for joining dispute resolution, but no credit at all for continuing to revert during the discussion. Any admin may lift this block if he will promise to accept a permanent voluntary ban from supercarriers on all pages of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:ABEditWiki reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result: No action, per discussion)

Page: Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ABEditWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff1
2. Diff2
3. Diff3
4. Diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LINK

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

Comments:
User ABEditWiki is engaging in behaviors I have never seen before in Wikipedia. It is clearly disruptive editing at the very minimum.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was not involving in obvious Vandalism. I raised my concerns in the article talk page in detail. But without addressing any of that User VictoriaGrayson kept on reverting.
  

1.
2.
3.
My attempts for engaging with user: VictoriaGrayson on talk page of user was not (deliberately) attended by User VictoriaGrayson in an attempt to get me blocked. I have replied to the block warning issued on my talk page as well with the concerns, which was not attended as well.
User VictoriaGrayson is involving in POV pushing by protecting fringe claims in the lead of the article, without enough consensus on the matter nor adequate mainstream/RS citations to the claim.

I report User VictoriaGrayson for disruptive reversions 3 times as mentioned above as my concerns were un-addressed by User VictoriaGrayson in user talk page as well as article talk page. -- AB^Talk 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• I actually agree with User:ABEditWiki on the merits of the point (and oppose VictoriaGrayson). However, I find ABEditwiki's editing behaviour intolerably obnoxious, and should be rewarded with a block. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• "intolerably obnoxious" is a good characterization. ABEditWiki's response on this page makes no sense. And ABEditWiki reverted Kautilya3 as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: No action, per discussion. To avoid a block for edit warring, User:ABEditWiki has agreed to wait for consensus before changing the article again. See his statement here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:No voy a llorar reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Can't Be Tamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

No voy a llorar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667463934 by ShadowRanger (talk)"
2. 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "I love you Shadow"
3. 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667537483 by ShadowRanger (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bangerz. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I warned for violating the 3RR at Bangerz, but continues to edit war on other pages. TL22 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the reported user seems to be WP:NOTHERE. --TL22 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And continues to edit war even after being notified of this report. Has also made a weird comment on my talk page. --TL22 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Edit warring, disruptive editing, harassment. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ganeshiyer3000 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

Page

Andha Naal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ganeshiyer3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "The "Rashoman effect" does not takes place in this film. Rashoman effect is when same event in narrated by people with contradicting interpretation. What ever story each suspect says is true."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Though there are reliable sources proving the film Andha Naal's similarities to the Japanese film Rashomon, he keeps removing them, using his own unsourced analysis to state that the films are not alike. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Kailash29792 you will want to read WP:3RR. Ganeshiyer3000 has only made one edit to the article this month. This is a content dispute and it should be noted that you have not made any post to the talk page of the article to discuss the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 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. TL22 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Markus W. Karner reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rohingya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Markus W. Karner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "I checked the sources (only those which are online). Derek Tonkin, Jacques Leider are not Burmese!"
2. 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667352466 by 58.106.252.62 (talk) please stop this madness over the economist sensationalist article. I work there and I can tell you the allegations are nonsense"
3. 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667333507 by 58.106.252.62 (talk)"
4. 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667279882 by 58.106.230.133 (talk) this sensationalist view is not found in any other page. Please don't push the views to extreme"
5. 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "revert promotion of one source above others"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markus_W._Karner&diff=prev&oldid=667353820 Warned by another user

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• User was warned this morning and has continued to edit war. Ogress _smash! 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Another user, User:User:Za-ari-masen registered an account at that page and their edits from IP+new account would also count as a 3RR/edit war issue, but I don't know how to report that kind of thing! Ogress _smash! 00:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have to add that I haven't added one single sentence to that article. This article has received one-sided edits from both sides and I am just reverting. The last revert has no association with previous reverts. I have worked there and understand that such unbalanced narratives inflame the problem. I am prepared to discuss on talk-page but these users will refuse to discuss and just push whatever they want with new accounts. Markus W. Karner (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Markus W. Karner removes well sourced content using very strange excuses (e.g. that he is in Myanmar and hence somehow has more authority or grasp of facts on the ground than the well regarded authors that are cited. Also, his claim that he is "prepared to discuss on talk-page but these users will refuse to discuss" is a blatant lie. A quick check of his talk page shows that he repeatedly ignored requests to discuss or specifically explain the reasons for his bulk removal of content. I believe he should be blocked to prevent his continual mass content removal which he defends in a very personal, nonsensical manner.58.106.254.122 (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Markus W. Karner, even a good-faith edit war is an edit war. Both of you are edit warring, which is why I brought this case here. The way to fix (alleged) vandalism isn't to edit war. You were warned once already 12 hours before I brought this case and you ignored it and kept on keepin' on instead of looking for another solution, like say seeking Admin assistance in the shape of IP edit protection by showing it is in fact vandalism. Ogress _smash! 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect this user is operating under an IP address (203.81.69.86) and continuing his same vandalism. Where can we investigate this and have this IP address blocked indefinitely if proven.--58.106.254.122 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - 58, go ahead and open up a sockpuppet investigation, but you always need good reason to suspect such. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Bosbeertjie reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67] as anon 196.212.6.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invitation to go to talk page, no response from user, no edit summaries

Comments:

Clear case of special purpose account with COI, adding spam, weasel words and unsourced content. - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dqeswn reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Indef block)

Page: List of unusual deaths#20th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dqeswn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. <no summary>
2. "dimethylmercury is a compound, so it's not mercury poisoning."
3. "Don't change it back to bullshit..."
4. <no summary>

Warring to repeatedly change the long-term stable

• 1997: Karen Wetterhahn, a professor of chemistry at Dartmouth College, died of mercury poisoning ten months after a few drops of dimethylmercury landed on her protective gloves.

to

• 1997: Karen Wetterhahn, a professor of chemistry at Dartmouth College, died of dimethylmercury poisoning ten months after a few drops of the substance landed on her protective gloves.

As is well-known, mercury has a serious hazard of chronic (long-term) mercury poisoning. However it's surprisingly difficult to achieve this through acute (short-term) exposure to elemental mercury metal. Deliberate suicide attempts have been unsuccessful. [73] [74]

Karen Wetterhahn was an expert chemist on mercury compounds. Her accidental death was unexpected and led to changes in the rules for handling organic mercury compounds, such as dimethylmercury. What was unappreciated beforehand was how risky these compounds were for penetrating protective gear. These compounds are also absorbed biologically far more readily than elemental mercury.

Her death though, as described in the article and from the sources in it such as Losing world‐class chemist Karen Wetterhahn to mercury poisoning redrew the boundaries of safety and risk., is accurately described as mercury poisoning. The crucial aspect was the organomercury compound increasing the risk of penetrating the gloves. In contrast to the unexpected difficulty of absorbing mercury quickly otherwise, it is the mechanism of exposure that makes the difference, and the eventual cause of death can accurately be described as the broader "mercury poisoning". The summary "dimethylmercury is a compound, so it's not mercury poisoning." is wrong, per the article, per the sources. Nor is the previous version "bullshit".

The edit warring here might appear to be over a trivial detail, but to chemists this stuff matters (it has killed at least one expert chemist). Chemists care about precise detail in stuff like this. In April we saw much the same thing from Dqeswn with 4 changes at Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions "This is not true either. Deflagration AKA burning is not an explosion either." (Note that although deflagration isn't a detonation, it is of course considered as an explosion. Chemists care about these things.)

It's at 4RR, clear bright-line. Only attempts to discuss were mine User_talk:Dqeswn#Mercury poisoning (after 2RR) Talk:Karen_Wetterhahn#Changes_at_List_of_unusual_deaths.231990s (after 3RR) and Dqeswn's User_talk:Andy_Dingley#dimethylmercury (simultaneous with 4RR).

I had already blocked when I noted this. Editor blocked until he agrees to cease the edit war. Restored the article to the version that agrees with the citation provided in the article.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Her death is not accurately described as mercury poisoning, and is not so described by the first of the three sources cited (the other two are not currently accessible). According to that source "[dimethylmercury] is one of the most potent neurotoxins known. It readily crosses the blood-brain barrier". It is way more toxic than mercury. I shall correct the article in line with the edit-warrior's views. Maproom (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I would not consider that a particularly good change. As to your claim about the three sources, we have

• [75] "the second person to die of dimethylmercury poisoning in this century." / "of mercury poisoning."
• [76] "Losing world‐class chemist Karen Wetterhahn to mercury poisoning"
• [77] "she slipped into a coma and died from acute mercury poisoning."

She was exposed to dimethylmercury. She died of mercury poisoning. Now it is not incorrect to state "dimethylmercury poisoning" either, but the whole crux of her notability is because of the distinction between mercury and dimethylmercury as exposure hazards. We should preserve that distinction and make it clear, especially in wide audience introductions, such as in LoUD. To claim, "Her death is not accurately described as mercury poisoning" (your emphasis) is just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning". She died of poisoning by a particularly toxic compound of mercury. Some lazy journalists, knowing that metallic mercury is itself a poison, fail to distinguish "mercury" from "a compound of mercury". But read source 84 from the article. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand why both parties were not blocked in this edit war. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maprom's comment is spot-on: "She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning"." Dimethylmercury is extremely dangerous in an acute sense. IMHO, it is highly misleading, verging on irresponsible, to imply that elemental mercury is even in the same league of toxicity. Dimethylmercury is not just the delivery mode of elemental mercury that penetrates the skin because it is molecular and lipophilic, it is the agent itself (latching on to cysteine residues, one assumes). My understanding is that many cases of "mercury poisoning" occur via its (slow) methylation. Wikipedia has a role in guarding against even inadvertent chemophobia (i.e., fear based on ignorance, vs reasoned caution based on chemical facts). Mercury poisoning etc is highly topical in view of the Hg content in some coal ash or flue gas, so we should aim for consistency.

Anyway, it seems that there must be a way of wording this thing to satisfy most parties, who seem well intentioned. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If "She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning"." is "spot on", would you care to comment on why so many of the RS already in the article are happy to use it? Are you, with Dqeswn, describing the contents of http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY as "bullshit"?

I cannot comment on that source. I still get a "403" message when I try to access it. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If the mechanism of mercury poisoning is indeed via its slow methylation, then doesn't that support the argument that her death, however the exposure happened, was down to "mercury poisoning" by the usual mechanism? It took months for her to even show symptoms, as is not unusual for elemental mercury exposure. Although the exposure was different, what supports this claim that the manner of her death was different?

We should BTW probably move this to Talk:Karen Wetterhahn Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not a super-duper expert and not agitated by this language war. I am just saying that Maprom makes a good point.

Re http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY being bullshit. Probably. Lot of manuals and textbooks (I have one too) warn about "mercury poisoning" indiscriminately, just covering our asses as well as a general dislike of heavy metals by professional chemists. As someone who played with lots of mercury as a child and have seen images of people floating on it (in National Geographic of all places) etc, I avoid the stuff, but dont freak out. MethylHg compounds do freak me out. I realize my words are not very defining but we do have a doctor in the house User:Sbharris. @Sbharris:--Smokefoot (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I heard my name.

There might be some justification for separating elemental mercury poisoning from organomercury poisoning, since the mechanisms are thought to be different. Elemental mercury is lipid soluble and gets into your brain and is oxidized to Hg2+, trapped in the brain, and causes damage as the ion, while methylmercury is thought to have its own mechanisms and (more importantly) a different half life in brain (a few months vs. many years).

Since elemental Hg doesn’t penetrate gut or skin well, people seldom die of elemental mercury without inhaling it, which has such good absorption that the elemental Hg load in the brain goes way up. People have survived having elemental Hg in their guts, and even veins (I think one guy below in the article referenced, had seen The Matrix too often and tried the Morpheus mindbreaker cocktail on himself).

Toxicity from mercury salts is yet another thing: brain is often protected because ions don’t get in, but kidneys are poisoned.

Prof Wetterhahn (unfortunate name) died 10 months after getting dimethyl mercury on her gloved hand. She had no symptoms for 5 months, since this stuff probably needs to be transformed to methylmercury to get into the brain, but is a supergood reservoir for methyl mercury before that. She has the longest symptom-free period known for a mercury poisoning death.

http://labmed.ascpjournals.org/content/33/8/614.full.pdf

The argument for lumping organomercury poisoning with mercury poisoning, is that mercury salts in the environment are transformed to organomercury by bacteria and even sunlight and non-bio reactions. Minimata started with mercury salts, but they were organified by lake microbes. Bacteria in the gut can also organify mercury. There is suspicion that methylation can happen with elemental Hg and methyl-B12 (this works in the test tube) but this has not been proven that I know of, in mammals.

This can all be fixed by qualifying organomercury poisonings as organomercury poisonings, and noting somewhere in each that mercury is very easy to organify. The stuff in fish started out as salts, but is organic by the time you eat it in your tuna. And so on. SBHarris 04:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

These are useful comments. The only place I would disagree is that Hg metal has no solubility in fats. It has no solubility (short of degradation) in any conventional solvent. As Harris points out, the literature is compelling on methylHg and inorganic Hg compounds being very toxic (in that order) but the record on Hg metal seems more ambiguous, hence its widespread use of amalgams in dentistry. I conjecture that Hg metal becomes toxic by either slow methylation by b12 enzymes or by slow oxidation to mercury salts that are more bioavailable for conversion to methylHg etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the link above. There are plenty of cases where people died rapidly (a few days) and horribly from mercury vapor inhalation. The case cite was a family in a house where the parents were extracting gold ore by cooking it in mercury in the kitchen. Two children died of acute lung injury in days (10 days and ~ 4 weeks actually), even on ventilators, and the mother had lung injury and the father was left with permanent brain damage. These deaths don't look like either mercury salts OR organic mercury. The metal itself is clearly toxic, if it gets into your system (which is hard unless breathed). In that case it wipes our your lungs first, and in short order. Then brain. Your conjecture would be good if we didn't have so much evidence about the time course and nature of acute metallic mercury inhalation toxicity, showing that it's clearly not an organification process. And if it happens only after oxidation, the elemental Hg atoms clearly go places as Hg(0) moieties before getting oxidized, giving metal poisoning symptoms that don't look like salt symptoms, which center on local damage in the gut, plus renal failure. Some of the argument about whether the metal itself has toxicity or only the salt, are philosophical. If the metal Hg(0) is oxidized in the act of irreversibly binding to thioredoxin, does that count as metal or salt toxicity?

BTW, mercury amalgams are nearly gone from dentistry. Occasionally they are used in the US for deciduous teeth that are about to come out anyway. But soon there will be none left. There are dental links in the above ref also, making the case that amalgam mercury does raise body burdens, and we only get away with it because of low doses of Hg(0) delivered over long times. SBHarris 21:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Muffi reported by User:Bobrayner (Result:indeffed)

Page

Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Muffi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667587692 by Bobrayner (talk)"
2. 22:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "there is already catagory; Disputed territories in Europe"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User talk:Muffi is wallpapered with unanswered warnings and block notices.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Lengthy discussions on Talk:Kosovo, which Muffi has not bothered to join.

Comments:

In Muffi's short tenure on this site, they've had three escalating blocks, the first for editwarring & POV-pushing on the War in Donbass, then two for editwarring on Kosovo, which is subject to 1RR. Shortly after their most recent block ended, they returned to Kosovo and did two reverts in a day. Ample warnings. No talkpage discussion. This is only going in one direction, I fear... bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The user has given too much rope alreeady, and it is time to stop this experiment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:Scoobydunk (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Comments:

Getoverpops just returned from a month long topic block which was the result of a previous edit warring resolution. This topic block came after multiple instances of edit warring in the past.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: User agreed to remove the POV tag)

We were in the midst of discussing changes to the article when Getoverpops ceased responding to our discussion and started making sweeping changes to the articles. This was my most recent response to our conversation before he started making changes.[82] Getoverpops was also warned again on his talk page about his most recent edit warring, but continued to edit war anyway.[83] Multiple short-term blocks have been implemented before and none of them seem to have any affect as this user persists to revert and edit war with numerous editors.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be considered an edit war. We are discussing the changes in the talk section and we are dealing with a refinement of the section. I have been active in discussing changes with others on the talk page. The four edits (not reverts) in question are for different changes each time. Furthermore we had reached an agreement that the sources I mentioned were reasonable to add to the article. Those sources were added and now we are simply refining the opening sentence to a paragraph at the end of one section. These are hardly sweeping changes (no new sections, no change in the overall thrust of the topic).

SD has only two things in these recent edits on which we don't agree. First, has been a refinement of the opening sentence for a paragraph that contains two differing views on a subtopic. The second is the inclusion of two references written by an academic in the field that support three other stronger sources (including one that has been in the article for two years). I ask that this notice be dismissed.Getoverpops (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This this request was posted a long time editor, RightCowLeftCoast, has at least suggested that he also feels the paragraph I was editing (three of the four edits) is imbalanced. He has also noted that the other section I was working on (the first of the four edits claimed to be evidence of an edit war) is imbalanced and needs cleanup. My edits are good faith efforts to improve the article and currently in line with the view of a long term Wiki editor. Getoverpops (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of the 3RR policy and it's the 5th time this user has started editing warring on the same subject within a 2 month period. Remember, 1 full month of that he was not permitted to make changes to the article, and almost immediately from returning from his ban, he starts edit warring with multiple editors. This user as repeatedly ignored policy and talk page discussions to pursue his own agenda, and the fact that he's still trying to justify breaking WP policy shows he believes his actions are beyond reproach.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User:Getoverpops is a single-issue editor who is never going to give up. I persuaded him to take a break from the Southern strategy for one month as a condition of lifting his last block, but he's back again, still full of enthusiasm and still oblivious to others' opinions. He's been on Wikipedia since 20 Marcy 2015, and in my opinion he is on Wikipedia to convey great truths about his favorite topic. For a long-term warrior on one topic who isn't listening to feedback I think we get closer to an indefinite block every time they return to AN3. The time may have come for that. It would be helpful to get others' views before issuing such a block. (Note: I formatted User:Scoobydunk's set of links to the past edit warring reports). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I strongly disagree with Scoobydunk's claim of edit warring. First, he falsely accused me of an edit war a month back when I ask you to tell me which post of mine resulted in a one month time out. You agreed that we could discuss it on June 11th but my request at that time went unanswered. If you look at the edits in question you will see they are refinements of a intro sentence to a paragraph. They are not simple reverts. I think Scoobydunk is acting in bad faith by claiming an edit war. Furthermore if you look at the posts of LeftCostRightCow you will see that he does not agree with the other editors who have previously claimed my views were minority. Please take a look at the effort I have gone through to make logical arguments and justify my views in the talk section. Finally, I would like to point out that I thought Scoobydunk and I were making good progress together and told him as much prior to his edit war posting.User_talk:Scoobydunk#Thanks If you think I have broken the rules, I ask for forgiveness since I am making a good faith effort to make the article better. I think LeftCoastRightCow will agree with that. Please take that into consideration. Getoverpops (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:185.62.242.50 reported by User:Fauzan (Result: 72h)

Page

Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

185.62.242.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667734337 by Fauzan (talk) It literally is."
2. 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667733496 by Fauzan (talk) You can get consensus to remove it there."
3. 09:52, 20 June 2015 "Added references"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667732445 by Denisarona (talk)"
   2. 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Comments:

User is ignoring request to generate consensus on talk page Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr^\ talk / 09:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Fauzan reported by User:185.62.242.50 (Result: declined)

Page: Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User: Fauzan (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667734337
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667733496
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667733160
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667734337

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

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

Comments: User is engaging in edit warring and removing sourced material.

• Declined --slakr^\ talk / 09:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:185.62.242.50 reported by User:Ogress (Result: already done)

Page

Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

185.62.242.50 (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 07:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Added sourced material on pre-islamic Ramadan."
   2. 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Fixed error."
2. 07:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667734337 by Fauzan (talk) It literally is."
3. 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667733496 by Fauzan (talk) You can get consensus to remove it there."
4. 06:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Added references."
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667732445 by Denisarona (talk)"
   2. 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 06:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ramadan. (TW)"
2. 07:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Talk page */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) on Talk:Ramadan "Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2015-06-18. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger"

Comments:

• Already blocked --slakr^\ talk / 09:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Denniss reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (page is subject to 1RR)

1. [85]
2. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

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

Comments:
This article, about an Arab cartoonist who "is best known for his images depicting the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", is subject to the 1RR limit applicable to all articles in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The editor being reported has been involved in an edit war dating making 6 reverts over the last 4 days, and violating 1RR today, per the above diffs. I warned them and asked them to self-revert, and they refused, basically saying "others are not listening to my arguments" - see [88] All Rows4 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ill note that the content being warred over has been in the article in substantially the same form since November 2014 [89], and that several editors (including Deniss, Huldra, and Pikolas) have been warring to remove it completely with no discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not belong to the lead in the original biased/POV form, that's why I added where these claims originate from to have it more in an NPOV form. Any reader is able to judge for himself whether these are valid claims (or just a form to counter critics) by reading the section in the article. --Denniss (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Claims and arguments about what is or is not NPOV belong in the article's talk page, and disagreements over these things - which are a content dispute- are not exempt from 3RR/1RR restrictions, which you violated. If you don't want to be blocked, just go to the article, revert yourself, and start discussing this on the Talk page. All Rows4 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. (@All Rows4, Gaijin42, and Denniss:). --slakr^\ talk / 09:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity reported by User:31.44.136.75 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

[90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:18, 18 June 2015‎
2. 08:48, 19 June 2015‎
3. 15:26, 19 June 2015
4. Additional revert by Zero, a long standing buddy of Nomoskedasticity.

Comments:
There have been long conversation on the Talk page in which Nomoskedasticity didn't bother to participate yet he reverted twice. I already reverted the same change by user Zero 18:30, 16 June 2015‎ asking explicitly to get involved in discussion before interfering but aparently Nomoskedasticity is above this.31.44.136.75 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IP editor violated 1RR on an article subject to that restriction via WP:ARBPIA. 1RR of course does not apply to reverts of the edits of IP editors, so it was not a violation for me to revert that editor twice in <24 hours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

update - Nomoskedasticity, WP:3RRBLP says my 2nd revert was justified and there is no exemption which allows you to revert IP edit. So not only you reverted w/o taking part in an ongoing discussion on WP:BLP, you also broke 1RR rule. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the talk-page header: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors ... are exempt from the 1RR". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So now you are in violation of 3RR since WP:ARBPIA states editors "are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." You still haven't bothered joining the discussion and I added the fact an op-ed is used for facts which you used yourself somewhere else. But the main issue here is the clear BLP violation. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The article history shows that the IP editor has now done 4 reverts in <24 hours. FTR, I have done 3, and so I have not violated 3RR; nor have I violated 1RR, having reverted an anonymous (IP) editor. Perhaps the article could do with semi-protection (though a block of the IP editor is also warranted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is quite amazing. An admin wrote on this case "Really, you thought you could write "X is a dangerous extremist" in a Wikipedia article and it wouldn't be reverted" (which you saw and clearly supports WP:3RRBLP) and you move ahead and add this text again? 31.44.136.75 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This IP is a walking disaster.

He's broken 1RR two days running:

• 08:36, 18 June 2015‎
• 17:55, 18 June 2015‎
• 08:22, 19 June 2015‎
• 15:17, 19 June 2015‎
• 15:37, 19 June 2015‎ 15:37

He cites policy he doesn't understand, he ignores the fact that at least 3 editors of experience, myself, User:Zero0000, and Nomoskedasticity disagree and have reverted him. He makes an insinuation that denies good faith (Zero is a buddy: I guess that means I am too). He breaks 1R with impunity and then, when reverted, thinks he can both report Nomoskedasticity for breaking the same rule he himself violates, and proceed to revert back. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation, since the text restored rather than call Yehuda Glick names, cancels their relevance to him by showing that he is called everything from a civil rights activist to an extremist. That is in the documentary record, and the fact no one agrees, means none of these epithets express anything but a POV. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Background. One POV, indeed only one source, describes Yehuda Glick as a ’civil rights activist’. He is also described as a religious activist, a political activist, a far right extremist, a defender of Jewish rights, a Jewish supremicist etc. How do you handle this multiple definition? You cannot privilege any one POV.

When editors tried to describe him by selective use of the most favourable epithet of several in one of the two sources, they were trying to tilt the text. Hence this edit by Zero, which blocked the selective POV push was correct .

• neutralise a little. both "right-wing extremist" and "civil rights activist" are easy to source so we shouldn't choose one or the other

This led to a POV war, so I added the actual text of one of the two sources describing him as a ‘civil rights activist’. It reads in full:-

‘Yehuda Glick is a dangerous extremist whose actions could plunge us all into a bloody religious war. Yehuda Glick is a civil rights activist bravely fighting for freedom of worship. Yehuda Glick is a Jewish supremacist seeking to extend Israeli occupation to one of Islam’s most sacred sites. Yehuda Glick is a sweet-natured, gentle man seeking to fulfil the vision of our prophets where members of all faiths come to Jerusalem to pray side-by-side in peace.'

This patently does not support describing Glick as a 'civil rights activist'. It is saying all descriptions of him cancel each other out, or controvert each other. Hence none of the terms in the source are neutral. That is what the IPs don't accept.

Evidently, editors can’t harvest one of the several descriptors to push a POV. None of them apply, since POVs clash. My solution was to call him a ‘religious rights activist’, which fits all sources. This led to two Ips edit warring, documented here. It is absurd to insist that adding the full text implies Glick is a terrorist or extremist or supremacist, any more than he is a 'civil rights activist', and adding it does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. The systematic violation of 1RR by 2 IPs was rightly corrected after the breach of the rule, by Nomoskedasticity, as per policy.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all very interesting and me and Nishidani discussed it on the talk page. The problem is Nomoskedasticity isn't part of this discussion (he just didn't bother) yet he reverted me multiple times.

As for the rest, Nishidani, if you have disagreement with another editor, take it to the talk page. Placing the text in a quote the is visiable to readers is BLP. Not to mention this is an op-ed which isn't RS for facts. I agree that ‘religious rights activist’ is probably more suitable but that is beyond the point.

Back to Nomoskedasticity, he seems to be extra careful about BLP on Omar Barghouti though I attributed the text, toned it down a bit and it doesn't even come close to 'dangerous extremist'. Double standards? 31.44.136.75 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• "only one source, describes Yehuda Glick as a ’civil rights activist’" (@Nishidani)

It's not so correct. See my "even Aesopian language of NYT authors does prove what you're trying to deny" at a Talk page:

Activist in Israel Is Wounded in Shooting. "An Israeli-American agitator who has pushed for more Jewish access and rights at a hotly contested religious site in Jerusalem was shot and seriously wounded..."

--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I saw the issue through a watchlisted page in which Cwobeel restored the deeply contested insertion of "reference only" text calling the subject of the article (a living person) a dangerous extremist and a Jewish supremacist sourced to an improper and an inadequate source. It seems as if there is a concerted effort to use non-neutral attack piece to label a person in their biography. The IP may have made numerous reverts, but according to BLP - the content should never have been reinserted after the challenge. Each editor who reinserted the attack piece violated this basic policy and failed to follow WP:BLP and WP:IRS. IP editors are not third-class citizens either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This board is on my watchlist. The quoted phrase doesn't support "civil rights activist", it supports "activist in favor of expanding the access and rights of Jews at" the site. Come on, now.

While Nishidani could have exercised more judgment in restoring the quote, it doesn't seem like it was a violation because reverts of IPs are exempt in this topic area, which is full of socks and trolls. Additionally, it wasn't included in article prose; it was in a footnote which already included part of the quote from the article and was misleading without the additions. It would have been better to remove the inaccurate information instead of restoring the quote, but I'm not sure this falls under the sanctions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for sanctions or punishment of anyone, but I don't expect "reverts of IPs are exempt" to be a valid defense. An error was made, it was not a big deal and life goes on. What matters is how this gets resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris, 'text calling the subject of the article (a living person) a dangerous extremist and a Jewish supremacist . . sourced to an improper and an inadequate source'.

Excuse my bolding but Haaretz is not an 'improper and inadequatre source', it is absolutely mainstream, like the New York Times, and the text did not call the subject of the article a dangerous extremist and a Jewish supremicist'. The text simply lines up all of the contradictory statements about Glick. Since the IPs kept edit-warring, the text went into a note to make this absolutely clear to them that they are cherrypicking. Reread Anshel Pfeffer, 'The Temple Mount has gone mainstream,' Haaretz 4 November 2014. This is starkly obvious and we should not be squabbling over it. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked 24 hours. Nomoskedasticity's reverts of the IP don't count against the ARBPIA 1RR, since they are reverts of an IP. The IP enjoys no such exemption so they broke 1RR. Claims of BLP are over the top. The opinion writer being quoted from Haaretz, Anshel Pfeffer, is implying that *some people* might consider Glick a dangerous extremist but is not stating that in his own voice. The Pfeffer quote is intended ironically, and may be too subtle for our readers to understand quickly. The article could be better off without having it in the lead. Four different possible ways of describing Glick are offered. (See the four sentences that each begin with 'Yehudah Glick is..' ). The lead ought to be clear and simple and is not a place for rhetorical flourishes that might be misunderstood. The same material could be kept in a footnote if consensus thinks it is relevant enough. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  Ed: I also added Template:Editnotices/Page/Yehuda Glick to hopefully help alleviate 1RR issues, since ARBPIA seems to be popular today. :P --slakr^\ talk / 09:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aman sharma (kishtwar) reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nagasena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aman sharma (kishtwar) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"
   2. 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"
   3. 07:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 08:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Sources */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. Spam. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:1987sagarkaul reported by User:Bentogoa (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yoga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1987sagarkaul (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 11:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 11:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
   2. 11:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
   3. 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
   4. 11:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
   5. 12:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 13:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modified with references"
   2. 13:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "added one more reference"
   3. 13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "added wiki reference page for Autobiography of Yoga and Kriya Yoga"
5. 13:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667765917 by Winner 42 (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 13:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Adding again the lost information, someone is deleting it... Don't know why..."
   2. 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "why the new additions are getting deleted...adding again...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
2. 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Seems like they are evading block, see Contributions/Swamikrishananda. Supdiop (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:86.50.111.163/User:153.152.96.7 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: )

Page: Hamdi Ulukaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.50.111.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/153.152.96.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92] (Undid revision 666650284 by 176.239.115.245 (talk))
2. [93] (Undid revision 666936542 by ToonLucas22 (talk))
3. [94] (Undid revision 667521749 by ToonLucas22 (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] (Warning: Edit warring. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diff

Comments:
This IP user has engaged in slow edit warring, I first warned with uw-disruptive but then decided to warn with uw-ew. 2 days later the IP reverted me again. --TL22 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA reported by User:AirWolf (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Nemanja Gordić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nemanja_Gordi%C4%87&oldid=666872300

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2601:CA:8000:2100:6CFF:EBA3:7A81:74BA#Nemanja Gordić

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nemanja Gordić#Nationality

Comments:
Continued deletion of referenced part of the text-content. Also, one another user tried to revert his disruptive edits-got reverted too.--AirWolf ^talk 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours for edit-warring and removing referenced details from a BLP. De728631 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:SansBias reported by User:Keri (Result: 60 hours)

Page: Pam Reynolds case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SansBias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
SansBias has made one comment to the talk page, and preemptively reported the article at DRN [107]. They have made no effort to discuss the changes, and seem intent on steamrolling their preferred content into the article. Their behaviour indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Continues to edit war [108]. Intends to continue reverting without discussion and game the 24 hour period [109] Keri (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. De728631 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He’s socking now [110]. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SansBias. Keri (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:TripWire (Result: No violation)

Page: Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.11.33.86 (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
2. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

link

diff

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

Comments:

• 82.11.33.86 has been blocked once aleardy for editwarring.
• Have been reported for second instance of edit warring here pending decision by Admins.
• The user has paid no heed to the discussion at Talk Page
• The user first reverted by saying that the source did not exist, but when explained and asked to self revert, he shifted his reason to another resason despite being told that theis info is already included in Wiki since right here
• No violation The IP was removing a copyright violation. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Site banned)

Page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z07x10 (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. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is the article talk page, User:Z07x10 is counter-arguing my reasoning for my RFC vote, turning it into an unreadable mess

Comments:
This is the article talk page, User:Z07x10 is counter-arguing my reasoning for my RFC vote, turning it into an unreadable mess Mztourist (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It was an unreasonable mess from the start. I simply broke your concerns up into sections to allow them to be answered more clearly. It is a talk page not an article, hence I was trying to discuss your concerns. The first of those was the initial edit, which was not a reversion, you then reverted this twice, so I reverted it back twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473692

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473938

I have now moved the responses into the threaded discussion section.

It should be noted that User:Mztourist lodged a complaint of OR against my article edit, which a 3rd party moderated and judged it to be a flawed complaint.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward

Mztourist then went WP:FISHING to justify his WP:I just don't like it. He then moved to source reliability, but the sources are used thousands on times in Wikipedia already. So he quickly moved back to WP:I just don't like it and began an RFC in the form of a vote, having rejected an opportunity for formal mediating that would actually look at policy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2

I'm currently having an article edit blocked by cliche mentality with no sound basis in policy. The behaviour displayed has been a disgrace to Wikipedia and discourages editors from participating.Z07x10 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A few comments from an involved editor.

First, the reported editor, User:Z07x10, appears to have violated talk page guidelines by refactoring the comments of the reporting editor, User:Mztourist.

Second, the reported editor has altered the wording of an RFC to make it non-neutral by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEurofighter_Typhoon&type=revision&diff=667459592&oldid=667458243

Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong.

Fourth, the reported editor has been pushing for eighteen months to add a particular paragraph to Eurofighter Typhoon, and is continuing to forum shop to try to find ways to lock in a particular addition. There is and has been consensus against the addition. Different editors have different reasons for opposing it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How on God's green Earth does asking for a policy-based reason make it non-neutral? I was merely trying to prevent a case of WP:I just don't like it.

By changing the wording of the survey question from one asking whether to include to one asking whether to exclude, you rendered the existing !votes incorrect and meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There were no existing votes when I made the change.Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong. - I really mustn't speak English anymore or something. Alleged synthesis. You judged it not to be synthesis. But it wasn't a flawed complaint??????

Where do you get 18 months from?

A little more than eighteen months, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZ07x10&type=revision&diff=583349929&oldid=582061973

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=579486889#Eurofighter_Maximum_Speed

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a different content issue, so no it isn't 18 months for this subject.Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no reasons other than WP:I just don't like it, hence why the mention of policy in the RFC wording is opposed. That's right the complainants are actually opposing the use of policy! Cliches have ruined this project!Z07x10 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Z07X10 has shown himself to be very stubborn regarding this article and he's been reported to admins several times. I've proposed on his talk page that he accept a voluntary ban from this article as a condition of continuing to edit Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear God, the cliche is here in full force now. This is a real encyclopedia problem - cliches that sit on articles and prevent any content they dislike, regardless of how well source it is. They simply get in contact with each other every time, so nobody can add any well-sourced content giving a certain POV. It's pretty damn bad when one gets accused of making a question 'non-neutral' simply because they asked for a policy-based reason. Then they get accused of edit warring because they added comments on a talk page in a discussion and another user removed them. Is that against policy anyway.

All I did on the talk page was exactly what User:Robert McClenon did above when he broke my edit into several pieces to respond to it. Should he be reported too?Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=667492783&oldid=667492514

Surely if I removed his edit, wouldn't I be the one in the wrong? Yet that's exactly what User:Mztourist did. Massive hypocrisy and double standards at large here!Z07x10 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Z07x10 is vandalizing random articles in order to slander other users. Spotted these 2 revisions (667607396 and 667607533) while browsing Wikipedia. This may warrant at least a temporary block from editing articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 Mechordeus (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Mechordeus thank you for spotting that, he has been blocked for 72 hours, personally I think an indefinite block would be more appropriate. Mztourist (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for the vandalism mentioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Site-banned by consensus at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Concord hioz reported by User:MilborneOne (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of most-produced aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Concord hioz (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. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:

Lots of discussion on article talk page and a Request for Comment was raised to provide inputs from others. User:Concord hioz continues to argue his position on the article talk page even after be asked to drop the stick and suggestions that they should use use other dispute resolution methods. The user has decided to edit war rather then use other dispute resolution methods. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Stemoc reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Both blocked)

Page: United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stemoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125] (fifth revert made after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Comments:

User is a serial WP:Wikihounding offender that is taking it upon themselves to single handedly revert nearly every contribution I make, and regularly uses threats, insults and caps to make their point. Reverted the third time with no explanation, and reverted a fourth time just outside the 24 hour window (about 3 hours, so I believe 3RR still applies according to guidelines) with a false charge of a policy that does not apply to my revert. Calibrador (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See here, user realizes he was caught for WP:SELFPROMOTION and is thus now claiming i'm edit warring when all I'm doing is REVERTING his vandalisms..--Stemoc 14:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job proving my point. Calibrador (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Which point would that be? all you do is add your images to articles to propagate your own personal and financial interest using wikipedia Gage Skidmore..reverting a SPAMMER is neither wikihounding nor vandalism..--Stemoc 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

None of what you stated is true. Calibrador (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The user being reported has reverted the article for a fifth time (after an edit by another user), seems to have some very serious ownership issues, either his way or the highway. Fifth revert. Calibrador (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

ownership issues? my friend, read the article you posted, I'm not the one with ownership issues as neither the images i replaced your poor/outdated images are mine nor do I have any direct interest in american politics..though on the other hand, your contribution history suggests otherwise..You even reverted another photographer who used his images on those articles and his post on your talkpage asking why you removed his images, so thanks for the link, not only are you self-promoting but you are also violating the ownership policy...--Stemoc 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing images is not self-promotion. Stop lightly accusing people of vandalism when all they're doing is changing images. --TL22 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Calibrador recently changed his name from Gage Skidmore and if you have actually read the other thread i linked above, the user is "intentionally" removing other people's images and replacing them with HIS...and when people started complaining, he had his name changed so that it won't look "obvious" ..--Stemoc 15:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So the reporter is engaging in sockpuppetry, huh? --TL22 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the link on my first post on this thread, the user has "intentionally" changed his name so that it won't look obvious that he is being involved in self-promotion..even I didn't realise it was him until i saw the changes he started making once he was renamed 2 days ago..--Stemoc 15:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is yet another one of their false claims. I requested a name change last week for reasons unrelated to this. Calibrador (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

19th june was less than 3 days ago..and please do NOT remove your previous name from the title again, Let users be aware of who you are as you are trying to make yourself look like a new users with no history/connection to the person's whose images you are promoting when you are the person himself.--Stemoc 15:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a 3RR rule for the 3RR page itself? That would certainly be fun... Calibrador (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A 3RR for what? telling users who you are by restoring your previous name in the title which is Gage Skidmore as you can see above, even TpoonLucas22 was confused because he wasn't aware of who you were....you know, you intentionally changed your name so that you could "vandalise" the wiki articles without anyone finding out ...and I'm the one that is supposedly violating 3RR? ..3RR does not apply to vandalism reverts.--Stemoc 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. Calibrador (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, I have been doing some research and there is no user called Gage Skidmore or GAGE SKIDMORE. Furthermore the user you are accusing of selfpromotion is registered since 2011, so there is no way they are a sock of Gage. Please provide evidence that this user was previously called Gage Skidmore. If you just blatantly say that he is Gage Skidmore without evidence you may be blocked for harassment (i'm not an admin but there are patrolling admins out there). And please do not refactor legitimate comments (titles count). --TL22 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My previous username was GageSkidmore, unfortunately I picked a bad time to decide I no longer wanted to use my real name as my username, as it has provided fodder for a certain someone to use against me untruthfully. Link to name change request. Calibrador (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Your user page and talk page from your former username had been moved to your new username. Stemoc - S/He did not change his name to avoid scrutiny as far as I know, S/he just changed it because S/he no longer wanted to use his/her real name. The next time you assume bad faith without good reason on him/her, I will report you for harassment/personal attacks. --TL22 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: uhm, dude, please read this this link, let me caps this since people can't read, CALIBRADOR IS GAGE SKIDMORE< this is why i use caps and bolds in my messages as most people ignore my comments completely without actually following the story..... Gage Skidmore a.k.a is Calibrador and once a user is "renamed", they are no longer associated to their name, its a FLAW of the new Meta:SUL and next time you decide to involve yourself in a thread, try to do a "proper" research, just by going to the user's userpage history, you would have seen what his previous name was...OK, I'm tired of this, can an admin who is aware of who Calibrador is come and comment here? I'm tired of this cat and mouse game..I have been on this site for nearly 9 years and I feel its about time i leave because it looks like this wiki has already lost all of its intelligent and good admins... and NO, please GO READ the thread on WP:ANI as i do not have the time to go over all this AGAIN..--Stemoc 16:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The instance you're referring to involved someone using a photo they took to replace an official portrait. Why is there no admin intervention on this discussion yet? I'm really sick of these personal attacks that this user continues to propagate. Calibrador (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Could we please get an admin response? Calibrador (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Note I will be getting out of this discussion as it seems too heated to even be able to deal with. Good luck for you guys. --TL22 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a 3RR discussion, right? The user being reported likes to create a lot of noise to distract from their own wrongdoings. A clear violation of 3RR has been made, so I hope that that can be addressed rather than unrelated matters. Calibrador (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not a "heated discussion", its so silly that no admin wants to be part of it, Toon, I urge you to go thru every edit of this user for this month only, and then come tell me there is no "self promotion" or conflict of interest" or ownership of articles"..Gage. the only one deflecting here is you, not me and please stop REMOVING your previous name from the TITLE..you have already confused one editor with your lies..and by removing it, you are ONLY proving what i'm saying--Stemoc 16:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note I've removed the name from the subject header. Don't re-add it. Also, enough with the back-and-forth accusations. You've made your points ad nauseam. Any more from any of you in the same vein will be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 Perhaps take it to WP:HALLOFLAME? --TL22 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Zack90 (Result: No action on Kwami, concerns about Zack90)

Page: Luri language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Zack90 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Zack90 edit-warred over several related articles, including this one, a few weeks ago. He also did not notify me of this report. (Actually, I warned him, twice, and he responded by reporting me here, indicating a rather egregious lack of good faith.) The edit he's pushing is unsourced and contradicts our other articles and the sources we do have, and what little discussion there was went against him.

Zack90 is currently also edit-warring at Northern Luri language, Southern Luri language, Eastern Baluchi language, Southern Baluchi language, and Western Baluchi language. (He might actually have a case for creating N & S Luri if he would engage in discussion and provide RSs.) — kwami (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with kwami on the potential WP:BOOMERANG issue here. Zack90 is certainly warring and is just continuing to do so without engaging in Talk page discussions to constructively explain their reasoning and attempt to resolve disputes. As noted by EdJohnston, Zack is even warring with an anti-vandal bot. Even when filing a report here, no explanation was given (and kwami was not notified). Please note that some of the same and similar articles were the topic of a recent dispute here on the noticeboard regarding warring by Mjbmr reported by Kwami (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Mjbmr reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)) that was closed as "No violation" despite a WP:3RR violation by Mjbmr, who subsequently said they were retiring, but who has now reappeared as an ally with Zack for the war. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, similar edits and behavior. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the two in my comments above.) When looking for sources to discuss Mjbmr's edits, I discovered that a couple of them might be worthwhile (with some extra work required), but they quit in disgust when they had to actually discuss and justify their edits. Now they're back, but their only editing strategy still appears to be to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Kwamikagami's page blanking at 3 Baluchi language articles is not constructive, especially when he has not explained his edits and there are move discussions in progress in all the 3 pages. Khestwol (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that this "blanking" of "articles" was not a mere out-of-the-blue blanking of longstanding content. Rather, in all three cases, it was a revert of a very recent conversion of a redirect into an article (in the midst of other related disputes). Ordinarily, the burden of justification for a major undiscussed content change (such as creating a new article where there was previously only a redirect) rests on the person who wants to make that change, more than on the person who wants to revert it. Zack90 and Mjbmr don't even seem to be bothering with edit summaries, much less explaining their perspective on Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zack90 hasn't edited since 01:03 on 18 June. Let's hope he will choose to respond here. Perhaps he can say if he has any connection to User:Mjbmr who has amazingly similar interests in a small set of language articles. I'll notify User:Mjbmr that he was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:Mjbmr provided a (somewhat ambiguous) reply at User talk:Mjbmr. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This page states that Mjbmr has been blocked indefinitely in the Persian Wikipedia. Per this Google translation it seems likely to be the case. He had an indefinite block on meta.wikipedia.org which lasted for three years and was only lifted in 2014. The meta block was for using socks to impersonate someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems interesting that during the discussion of the request for CentralNotice adminship submitted by Mjbmr, Zack90 was the only editor that voiced support for the request, and it was one of only four Wikimedia edits ever made by that user. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action against Kwamikagami. There is a possibility that User:Zack90 is a sock of User:Mjbmr. Though I haven't submitted an SPI, someone else could. At the moment there doesn't seem to be enough behavioral evidence for a block, though that could change if either party makes more edits. User:Mjbmr has previously been blocked for socking on the Persian Wikipedia (see the above links). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is closed, I restored the original versions of the Luri and Balochi articles, only for them to be reverted by Zack90. He's even changing the name in the Balochi article to conflict with the title. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjbmr/Archive, Zack90 has been indef blocked as a probable sockpuppet, and Mjbmr has been blocked for a week as a probable puppetmaster. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gulf War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "I post on talk, now you must"
2. 16:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "No, they sat in Saudi Arabia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Gulf War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ re"

Comments:

Clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. Long history of non-stopping and incredible edit-warring. Faizan (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Can have a look please? Faizan (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I started talk page discussion, I revert 2 times only, as Pakistan did not fight in war, I even gave source on talk. All I get here is attacks and false warnings. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't cry wolf. --TL22 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

[128] Another user says they harass 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:KHLrookie reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)

Page

American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KHLrookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "clarifying"
   2. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuation of edit warring (within 24 hours of previous block expiration) after 24 hour block by C.Fred for 3RR violation on same page for same reason. Past AN3 filing can be found above (link to section). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Very clear that the user has been repeatedly told by other editors to discuss the matter on the talk page, Which in fairness he did do on the page in question. However he did not contact the users making the revisions to discuss the matter in question and even though credit is given for raising the matter on the articles talk page, He however continued reverting instead of discussing the matter which doesn't earn him any favours. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Stale. Had I seen this when it was a fresh report, I likely would have blocked the user 48 hours. However, as it happens, the user hasn't edited since the diffs above anyway (and that 48h block would have expired by now). —Darkwind (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:TripWire (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Balochistan, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Apart from the above reverts, foll diff shows the info IP has been constantly adding in clear violation of the discussion at the Talk Page (he simply refuse to accept that the edits are beyond the scope of the article especially when a dedicated page (Balochistan conflict) already exists on the info he is trying to add:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff —TripWire ^talk 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st warning (uw-disruptive2), 2nd warning (uw-disruptive3}, 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• diff
• Diff
• Diff

Comments:

There's a long discussion at the talk page, The IP has been explained and discussed with many times that the info he is trying to add does not fit the scope of the article. He alone Vs 5 x other editors have said the samething, but he simply fails to pay heed to the discussion at the Talk Page.—TripWire ^talk 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I only have one revert, all infos I add is new. Only one user on talk is against the edit, and he is no being honest here. See here [129] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So what you want to say is that all the following discussions are fake: [130], [131], [132], [133] and [134]. And all the other editors (Human3015, Cyphoidbomb, Faizan, TopGun and myself) have been saying and telling you is wrong? —TripWire ^talk 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb says violations belong in article[135] Human3015[136] Faizan have no commented Top Gun has only just. So you're not being honest. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Let the Admin be the judge of that. —TripWire ^talk 19:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Making changes in content that is already a part of the article is called a revert. Regardless of whether you change one part of the article or the other, as far as you are modifying edits of other users, you are reverting. You have been doing this since Jun 13 and all I see is editwar - which is the case regardless of any discussion you ought to have started. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have only added new info, I did only 1 revert. Even Paksol/TripWire says consensus on human rights violations and adding he facts.[137] so you delete against consensus. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to mislead by lieing:

• 1st Revert Today
• 2nd Revert Today
• 3rd Revert Today
• Manually adding the same info again is also called Revert and you know it and that's why you did it manually. —TripWire ^talk 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a lie, consensus for edit so not revert new infos new infos stop insulting by calling liar. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Let the admin see who is in the habit of lying and accusing. —TripWire ^talk 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean you saying on your userpage[138] you in Pakistani army and linking you blog and then saying on use TopGun page[139] you blog? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked —Darkwind (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:68.199.36.73 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

List of Jessie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

68.199.36.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Nothing's wrong with"
3. 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667955572 by MarnetteD (talk)"
4. 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "" (this edit appended to list, coming after the report filed)
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jessie_episodes&diff=next&oldid=667962218 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667962218 by Callmemirela" added by AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page

• [140][141]

Comments:

User has issues with another editor's proper use of tone in this article ("children" instead of "kids", and spelled out words for contractions), and insists on using the less formal wording. User has also attacked another editor on this [142]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that DEFINITELY belongs in WP:LAME territory. --TL22 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —Darkwind (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:82.11.33.86 (Result: Three-revert rule not violated)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (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. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

Use is deleting my comments, I read WP:CANVASS, says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Use has now deleted this report 2 times.[148][149] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this IP has been reported thrice above already. This one is the latest. Faizan (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note [150] Ignored as No violation [151] Closed by admin as No violation 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is not WP:3RR as it is not an article, neither are there 3+ reverts. The user was kindly advised on their talk page over inappropriate use of noticeboards per WP:CANVASS. According to their talk page and contributions, the user appears to be engaged in edit wars across several articles with many other editors, and it is not difficult to understand why. The IP reinstated their comment on the noticeboard 3 times despite being told why not to. As of now, a second editor has reverted them there. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• WP:3RR says "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space" 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also WP:CANVASS says you cannot post to noticeboard 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Note The IP who filed this has been blocked for 48 hours for violating WP:1RR sanctions at Gulf War. Mar4d (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• No opinion on this case, I just wanted to point out to Mar4d that our edit warring policy is not limited to article space, nor do you need to perform 4 reverts to be considered to be edit warring. Chillum 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's an another report on the IP above as well, maybe that ought to be taken into account as well. Quite a havoc for the day. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Chillum: Thanks for your comment. I would still like to maintain my original position, which is that this wasn't edit warring. The IP in question has made several disruptive edits, some of which were obvious cases of POV-pushing, and that can be gauged from both their talk page as well as contributions. What I meant is that this is not an article under content dispute (where 3RR usually stands out), but rather an unnecessary WP:CANVASS post at an unrelated noticeboard, for which the IP had been told. The removal was justifiable and as the IP chose not to cooperate, they were in the wrong. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Mar4d: I agree with Chillum. Although I'm not going to take any action either, your repeated removals were not justifiable. Even if the IP was in the "wrong" - and that's just your contention - you're not entitled to battle over it. Report them for canvassing if you wish, but don't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Noted. However, as above, WP:CANVASSING is not okay so if a post gives an impression of canvassing, it will cause contention. FYI, a second user had reverted the IP in line with WP:CANVASS following the IP's 3 reverts. Mar4d (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict)x3 Filing editor Already blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation at Gulf War. Got 3 consecutive edit conflicts while trying to save my edit... TL22 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• 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. —Darkwind (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both warned)

Page: Economic history of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dentren (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. [152] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe"
2. [153] Dentren deletes the tag "fringe" again.
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Context

On 27 May EdJohnston blocked me and Dentren because a edit war: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Dentren_reported_by_User:Keysanger_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29

We tried in the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific but no agreement could be reached.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile#Dispute_Resolution, and also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_116#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific

The three tags must stay there until an agreement is reached.

Comments:
Please, reinsert the tag "fringe" and warn user Dentren not to make (relevant) changes without consens.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This dispute was handled at WP:DRN, but it was closed with no resolution. The comment by the closer User:Kharkiv07 was:

Lack of adequate participation, as well as a conversation that did not progress much when it was (semi)active. A lot of that conversation was also reduced to attacks, and comments out of line of the moderator's requests.

I interpret this as saying that the negotiation failed due to poor behavior by the parties. After this failure, the edit war began again on 20 June when User:Dentren removed a FRINGE tag from one section. The reverting went on from there, with Keysanger choosing to restore the tag, and Dentren removing it again.

It's fine if the two of you refuse to come to agreement, but if so then neither of you should touch the article before agreement is reached. You both need to wait patiently until you can get a talk page consensus in favor of your change. If not, you are edit warring.

My plan for closing this is to notify both editors that whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, will be blocked one month. Assuming this causes them to stop reverting, this will have the same benefit to the article as an indefinite page ban on both parties. The 'ban' expires whenever agreement is found on Talk. Before closing this AN3 I'll wait to see if anyone wants to comment on the plan. An alternative to this plan would be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

For those unaware of Keysangers track record must take not how Keysanger accuses me of doing changes without consensus when he begun unilateral changes in February 2015 that evolved into disruptive editing. –Dentren | ^Talk 21:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I support Eds proposal to bury the hatchet and to return to the talk page. Tomorrow, 23, I will offer in the article talk page a new wording for the disputed paragraph and hope the best. In my opinion the problem is that Dentren says "it is a Chile article, we have to write solely about facts concerning Chile". I consider it a wrong approach that leads to biased descriptions: "Some X were involved in business crimes. Several X were pimps. Many X didn't pay taxes. In this circumstances occurred the X-genocide" --Keysanger (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: Both Dentren and Keysanger are warned, with the terms given in my comment above. Whoever reverts the article next, prior to getting a talk page agreement, may be blocked for a long time. Both parties are encouraged to use the talk page, and should consider an RfC. This dispute about the economies and reasons for war is opaque to outsiders. Both parties are encouraged to explain their concerns better in terms that everyone can understand. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aaabbb11 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]
5. [160]
6. [161]
7. [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• ANI warning by original filer
• AN3 notification to user being reported: [163]
• AN3 notification to original filing party: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section link

Comments:
This was originally filed at WP:ANI by STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I moved it here as this is the proper venue for the complaint and there does indeed appear to be edit warring occurring. (Link to closure of that ANI). Below is a copy-paste of the original complaint:

Click to see original complaint
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently removed the Wikilink to "cult" in the article Falun Gong. [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] My warning to him/her [172] was to no avail. An intervention is needed. STSC (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring about the phrase 'evil cult'. The revert war on the wikilinking of 'cult' has been going on for 4 months. Aaabbb11 seems to be declaring himself the winner of a talk page discussion that he began in February where he only ever left one posting. It would make sense for him to wait for a clear consensus. Aaabbb11 has already been notified under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBFLG and it wouldn't take much more poor behavior to justify a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Solhjoo reported by User:Samak (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: West Azerbaijan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),Piranshahr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Iranian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solhjoo (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 to edit warring Remove entries and the inclusion of the entries of arbitrary
2. diff Iranian Official ‍Province renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)
3. diff diff Iranian Official ‍City renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)
4. diff diff Iranian Official ‍County renaming (Kurdish Nationalism name)

Seeing her contributions Had the wrong editions especially move the article in Iran cities to Kurdish nationalism name.

Samək^Talk 09:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) -->

• Warned about disruptive page moves. Their behavior is not quite edit warring, although it is disruptive. —Darkwind (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fsfolks reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked)

Page: see below
User being reported: Fsfolks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• On GNU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
  • initial change
  • revert at 16:26, 21 June 2015
  • revert at 00:50, 22 June 2015‎
  • revert at 15:47, 22 June 2015‎
  • revert at 16:53, 22 June 2015
• On Portal:Free software/Terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
  • for initial change and first eight reverts, see previous report
  • revert at 22:07, 20 June 2015
  • revert at 00:57, 21 June 2015
  • revert at 13:24, 21 June 2015

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 22:28, 20 June 2015 by User:C.Fred
• 06:12, 21 June 2015 by User:Skyerise
• 08:16, 22 June 2015 by me
• 19:43, 22 June 2015 by User:Aoidh

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:GNU
• Portal talk:Free software/Terminology

Comments:

This user has resumed edit warring on the same page, and another associated article, immediately after the expiry of his last block for edit warring. Technically 3RR has not been breached, though the edit warring across multiple pages is clear cut, and particularly disruptive because the material he's introducing breaks the template markup. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reporting user has clearly shown his bad faith in many comments: he did a personal attack describing me as "rude" [173] for my comment on his edit [174] in which I described it as "vandalism" as been explained in the talk page of the GNU article : he didn't stop at that, and now he is reporting me under 3RR reason while what I did is only reverting his unconstructive edits. Fsfolks (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fsfolks has a free software agenda, a battleground mentality, and has clearly resumed edit warring. Does not appear to be here to improve Wikipedia. 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs)

Blocked indefinitely – It appears that User:Fsfolks is here on Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. He wants to remedy the neglect of the term 'Gnu/Linux' which he believes people should employ, instead of 'Linux'. He uses the term 'vandalism' to describe reverts of his own changes, even when his changes have questionable grammar. A block appears necessary until such time as he expresses willingness to follow our policies. Until now most people were unaware that Linux was severely misnamed. We do have an article called GNU/Linux naming controversy which goes into the matter. A sample of their attitude may be seen at User talk:Fsfolks#Accusations and personal attacks.EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:165.112.98.48 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Jaws (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

165.112.98.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[175]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
4. 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Please stop edit-warring. Discuss at Talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring after warning, previously edit-warred on a different film article despite multiple warnings DonIago (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:107.178.46.170 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Rangeblock)

Page

Justinian I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

107.178.46.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "You are not sure if I am sock let the investigation show it, please explain with valid edit summaries. Please avoid tendentious edits, this is a Greek source claiming he didnt speak Greek check it"
2. 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "That is a sourced information by Greek author claiming that he didn't even spoke Greek!"
3. 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "this is as unofficial form for administration and emperors at that time and hence for the person as he didnt speek greek, orthodox is multinational how about including russian?"
4. 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leo I the Thracian. (TW★TW)"
2. 17:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Longterm edit-warring across many Byzantine Empire-related articles. Sockpuppet of Miss Paris Slue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked the whole /20 range (used by cloudmosa.com) per {{webhostblock}} for two months per explanation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Febin ABD reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: Stale)

Page: Petr Čech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Febin ABD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert
2. Second revert
3. Third revert
4. Fourth revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176] (First edit to his/her talk page)

Comments:

Tried reasoning with the user but my message and the warning I posted afterwards were simply disregarded and reverting continued. Technically he/she hasn't been reverting the edits, but has been constantly reintroducing unreferenced and unconfirmed information related to the article after being asked not to do so. I think a short ban (24–72 hours) would be appropriate here. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stale: user has not edited in over 24 hours. Also, this behavior wasn't really what I would consider edit warring; because each of the edits was to a different place on the page, they may not have even realized you were reverting them. If this user returns and edits disruptively again, perhaps try posting at WP:ANI. —Darkwind (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RHB100 reported by User:Siafu (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page: Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179]
3. [180]
4. [181]
5. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184],[185],[186]

Comments:

This is a repeated dispute between RHB100 and all other interested editors at Global Positioning System. Every 6-12 months, RHB100 returns and attempts again to force an inaccurate and unsupported interpretation of the GPS problem solution onto the article. For the most recent iteration (before this one), see here. RHB100 has been informed multiple times about the requirements for sourcing, no original research, consensus, and 3RR, and continues to ignore all of them. Currently he/she is in violation of 3RR, but a more extensive solution may be called for. siafu (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've warned the user at User talk:RHB100 that the most practical response to sporadic but tenacious POV-pushing at wide intervals is an indefinite block. So far there has been no response that would justify a different outcome. A promise from him to wait for consensus would be enough to avoid this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

siafu is stating outright lies. The edits I have made are sourced and are quite accurate. siafu does not know what he is talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

siafu is stating outright lies. The edits I have made are sourced and are quite accurate. siafu does not know what he is talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree to stop edit warring even though I believe I have done nothing wrong. I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right but I guess if these people are going to force their incorrect views, I guess I cannot stop them. So I will not do any edit warring. RHB100 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have told you that I have concluded that it appears useless to try to educate these people on how GPS works. What more do you want me to do. I did nothing but try to make the GPS article correct. I didn't know that normal editing was counted as reverts. Other people were far more guilty of edit warring than me. Is there anyway to change an incorrectly written article. I will keep in mind that what I thought were normal edits is sometimes considered a revert. I will refrain from making changes until I understand the difference between normal editing and reverts better. RHB100 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The deal, if you accept it, requires that you wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any change to the article. This means you won't do any change unless others support it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will accept it. Will you please place the same restrictions on others so as to avoid further degradation of the article. siafu is more guilty of edit warring than me. RHB100 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In diff 2 [85] at [187] and diff 5 [88] at [188] I have not in any way changed, modified, or reverted anybody's edits. I have only added new material. I have therefore made at most 3 reverts and I am not guilty of violating 3RR. RHB100 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: No block of User:RHB100. He is accepting a voluntary restriction, to make no further change at Global Positioning System unless it is first discussed on the talk page and it gets consensus there. RHB100, please follow this restriction carefully because, if not, an indefinite block is just around the corner. In a long-term war like this one we are not counting up to three reverts, we are just observing that you constantly make article edits that nobody else supports. You might be more satisfied with Wikipedia if you simply give up on this article and choose to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:YHWH's Right Hand reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef by Kww)

Page: God in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YHWH's Right Hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]
5. [194]
6. [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:God_in_Islam#Regarding_recent_edits_by_User:YHWH.27s_Right_Hand. I've also explained relevant policies and guidelines on their user page.

Comments:
Edits are closer to 26 hours than 24, but it is obvious that YHWH's_Right_Hand is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia, they are here to advocate for a WP:FRINGE position (see this draft of theirs). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, they've made a fifth revert, unambiguously putting them past 3rr. The fifth edit repeats their anti-Arabic/Anglo-centric WP:FRINGE claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This should be an indef due to WP:NOTHERE. Take a look at the wording of Draft:Allah is not God, an exercise in personal POV that the user wants to add to the encyclopedia as an article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we've got yet another, which only confirms the WP:NOTHERE. They've been asked to take their rants to the talk page, but that clearly wasn't what they wrote them for. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I had already indefed the user on the basis of WP:NOTHERE before noticing this discussion.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:siafu reported by User:RHB100 (Result: Closed per another report above)

Page: Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: siafu (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668227154&oldid=668227077
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668226444&oldid=668226348
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Positioning_System&type=revision&diff=668224274&oldid=668223329
4. [diff]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System

Comments:
User:siafu made these 3 reverts in less than an hour. This shows how irresponsible he was. He could not have read the references and talk page with comprehension in that short a period of time. He appears to be unable to comprehend fundamental principles of GPS. He promotes an incorrect interpretation of GPS geometry. RHB100 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Saifu has only reverted three times. WP:3rr requires making more than three reverts, as you did ([197], [198], [199], [200]). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to comments to reply to them instead of just editing old comments. Wikipedia really doesn't care about expertise, we only care about summarizing published professional sources -- no original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I have only made one revert and that was after siafu had reverted me 3 times. I made responsible editing changes which involved adding new material and changing old material, but it was in no sense a revert. RHB100 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Manually repeating the contested edit, even if varied in its presentation, is counted as a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is another report of the same dispute above. User:RHB100 could avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Now closed per another report above. User:RHB100 is accepting a voluntary restriction in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:75.82.196.11 reported by User:Tefkasp (Result: Semi)

Page

Cheesesteak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

75.82.196.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[201]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[202], [203], [204], [205]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[206]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[207]

Comments:

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The definition of a cheesesteak is up to editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mattnad reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: No action at this time)

Page: Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]
5. [213]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on article talk page twice (see links below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214],[215]

Comments:
(Non-admin comment) I'd like to ask the administrators to be lenient in this case and not give more than a 24 hour block. It has to be understood that this is a highly sensitive topic which is fraught with severe NPOV and BLP problems, and certain editors, including BoboMeowCat have utterly stonewalled any attempts at making even the most trivial changes, perceiving bias in the most innocuous places. Meanwhile this is an article about a serious criminal allegation against a non-notable person. This BLPN discussion resulted in a decision that the name could be included if the defense was discussed in the article - and there is substantial evidence, though not definitive proof, that the accused person may be innocent. The video whose description Mattnad was trying to cut down is an apparent re-enactment of the alleged attack, and was used as a reason to ignore this ruling and not discuss the defense; meanwhile though, the accused's name still appears in our references. In light of this Mattnad's actions seem less unreasonable. I was not involved in this particular dispute. Also, nothing I said should be understood as an accusation of bad faith on anyone's part: I think people just have fundamentally different views on the subject and are trying to be reasonable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As the filer of this report, In general, I tend to agree with requests to be lenient, but if admins look over the edit history, they will see there also might be another editor over 3RR, who I didn't even bother reporting, because unlike Mattnad, they did not revert again immediately after being warned [216],[217]. Doing so seems disruptive to the point of warranting some sort of action (although I tend to agree with Sammy that 24 hours is probably reasonable) Also, I disagree with characterization of stonewalling. Currently, there is clearly no talk page consensus to make such substantial changes to that article section, there may be consensus at some point, but clearly not now. Acting unilaterally, to make major article changes seems disruptive, especially on an article as sensitive as this one. It's spent a lot of time at WP:BLPN. I was the actually the filer of the BLPN discussion Sammy linked above. I'm sensitive to the BLP concerns regarding the accused student, but edit warring against consensus, historically has only increased BLP violations and reduced article stability. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no warning offered and I'll add there was significant dialog that preceded the change [[218]] where I proposed several alternatives. I took Bobomeowcat's feedback, and developed alternatives that directly addressed the editor's concerns (except for his/her view that it's fine as is). In the end, that particular editor made several reverts after mine without ANY effort at compromise after I had addressed the requirements stipulated by that editor on the talk page. If I am edit warring, so then is he or she is in principle. I've made my points on the talk page at this point. If other editors feel like they want to take up pursuit of improving the article, they can go for it.Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I will add that "Stonewalling" is an appropriate description of Bobomeowcat's approach, not to mention ignoring the dialog that he/she engaged in after the fact. As for the socalled 3RR, a close examination will indicate that they were not all reverts, but moving back to earlier versions, and then editing as well of the revised text. Bobomeowcat is using this process instead of good faith engagement. Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, here are the warnings offered.[219],[220] Here is the talk page discussion that shows no consensus for your changes.[221] You say I've made "several reverts" without providing any diffs, but in contrast to your five clear reverts on that page (as an experienced editor you should know that removing article content as well as hitting the undo button counts as a revert), I have made two,[222],[223] which were restoring stable version of article and encouraging consensus prior to drastic changes. I'm also not the only editor who has reverted you.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, one other reverted me, but you are the one editor who stated what was required for that section, made additional requests based on my good faith proposed edits, then started stonewalling. You immediately reverted me twice without substantively addressing any of the concerns or comments I made once I had addressed your feedback. The other editor came in long after all of that the next day. At any rate, I've already said I'm not planning to make anymore changes. You got want you want, which is your way.Mattnad (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, you opened a talk page discussion saying that section should be drastically trimmed. No one agreed with you. You unilaterally drastically trimmed that section anyway, edit warring with me and also veering off into another mini-dispute, with an editor who apparently took exception to some of the wording you used for your drastic trimming/rewrite of that section. Then another editor stepped in and restored previous version. As an experienced editor, you should know that simply saying you plan to do something on talk page, does not provide you license to unilaterally make drastic changes to the article like that, when no one agrees with you, and opposition is raised. It's also really disruptive to make five reverts in 24 hours. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: You need to learn to use the Talk page. You are implying that I too am disruptively editing the article. I try to engage you in conversation. You do not respond. This leads to disruptive editing in article space. You engage in what I will term "hit and run" conversation. This needs to be contrasted with "sustained" conversation. Of course a person resorts to making changes in article space when you inexplicably drop out of the conversation. It is very frustrating to expend effort in trying to present reasoning, including sources, only to find that the person with whom you are speaking has decided to abandon that conversation. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop, please be aware that pings do not work, if you add them after the signature. I didn't get your previous ping. I see you added it after the signature. [224] I was only alerted to it via ping in this thread, when I tried to figure out what you were talking about here. I will respond in that thread more fully when I have time. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Add-Bus stop, since you objected to me implying you disruptively edited the article. I'll say it outright. You appear to have violated 3RR. [225],[226],[227],[228], [229]. The only reason I didn't report you as well is because unlike Mattnad, you didn't revert again immediately after warning, so I thought the disruption had subsided.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And a little canvasing here by Bobomeowcat [230].Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, suddenly, we have a brand new account on talk page. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's a little unusual for first edit ever to be on a talk page like that. In past, the Mattress Performance talk page was bombarded by single purpose accounts and IP's and Sarah (SV) did a lot of work to keep BLP violations off that talk page and also inquiring about alternate accounts and/or editors posting while logged out. If admins or uninvolved editors think that brief note on an administrators talk page violated wp:canvassing, I'd welcome the feedback, but I've read wp:canvassing and I don't think it does. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you arguing its a sockpuppet? Then there's a board for that. But you knew that.....Mattnad (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: No action taken at this time, as the disruption seems to have ended. If anyone continues to edit disruptively at this article, it should be protected; either ping me and I will do so, or request protection at WP:RFPP. @Mattnad: You clearly broke 3RR in this case, and it is not at all clear that the BLP exception to 3RR would apply in this case. However, given that blocks are not punitive and you have stated that you will not continue to edit this article, I don't see that it would be productive or helpful to block you from editing. —Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:ABEditWiki reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ABEditWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Reverting POV push"
2. 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "undoing contested edits by JJ"
3. 07:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668252980 by Ogress (talk) Do see talk page, This was not part of article before the disoute began. It was inserted byuser JJ despite a consensus."
4. 06:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668245027 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) Please refer to talk page"
5. 05:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Caste system in India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Caste system discussion */ new section on the User's talk page"
2. diff

Comments:

The user has previously violated 3RR, and was let off with a warning by EdJohnston. In retrospective, a block at that time would have been valuable service to the user. Their tendentious behaviour only got worse with time. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind my convenience Kautilya. :) Any admin take view after checking out ANI here. Please refer to article talk page as well. Cheers AB^Talk 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. ABEditWiki is back revert-warring again at Caste system in India, after he was let off without a block last time around. In my opinion the assurances he made had last time around suggested he wouldn't be back here so quickly, for warring on the same article. If this behavior continues, the next logical step is a ban from the topic under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:31.19.115.12 reported by User:Atlesn (Result: Semi)

Page: Motovlog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.19.115.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

• Edit warring: User continues with the same unexplained edit to the article despite being reverted and explained why so in summaries
• Edits are violating WP:ADV and possibly WP:COI
• User is not communicating or providing edit summaries. User has been encouraged to discuss on the talk page.
• June 10th to Jun 22nd the user has been vandalizing the article
• After this, there are three consecutive equal unexplained edits
• Article has been whitelocked, and two pending changes from the user been reverted today by reviewers

User has been warned on his talk page prior to the most recent edit.

Atlesn (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected three months. Another admin had tried PP-PC1 but during the time it was active it had not stopped the constant reverting by User:31.19.115.12. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Page

Fred C. Koch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]

Page

Americans for Prosperity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [236]
2. [237]
3. [238]
4. [239]
5. [240]

Comments:

This user intentionally spread these edits apart far enough to avoid detection. His behavior has been discussed on talk pages, is disruptive, and has been noticed as an attempt to circumvent guidelines. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a long-term issue. Hugh appears to be edit-warring as a symptom of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've not edited on Fred Koch, but on Americans for Prosperity, Hugh has consistently been editing against WP:CONSENSUS. After receiving multiple warning on this noticeboard and elsewhere, Hugh's edit warring behavior does not appear to have been reduced. More serious or longer term solutions may need to be found for this user's problematic editing behavior.

See:

• March 2015 warned for edit warring [241]

• April 2015 blocked for edit warring [242]

• May 2015 blocked for edit warring [243]

Clearly the past warnings haven't yielded an improved understanding of constructive editing behaviors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days —Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Borntodeal reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked)

Page

Kathy Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Borntodeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [244]
2. [245]
3. [246]
4. [247]
5. [248]
6. [249]
7. [250]
8. [251]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard (TW)"
2. 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kathy Ireland. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Will add diffs NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I recommend formal resolution request under Wikipedia policy please stop removing the content and take this to a productive discussion or formal resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Your colleagues are now all collaborating in harassment under Wikipedia's policy and I'm asking you all to stop. Thank you. Borntodeal (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

First you are free to start a DR anytime you wish. even if you did start one that would not excuse your obvious edit warring. It should be noted that you have make no attempt to justify your changes on the talk page for the article since early June. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this doesn't really qualify for DR, since Born has made no effort to discuss on talk page, which is pretty much a prerequisite for DR. This editor left 3RR behind in the dust a long time ago. In addition, their constant attempts to enter PR material should bring into question whether this editor should be allowed to continue editing on this article. Brings up serious POV, COI and NOTHERE issues. Onel5969 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if Born used the talk page, I don't think this would qualify for DR as I have serious concerns about Born's behavior and undisclosed conflict of interest editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:76.175.73.87 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result:Semi)

• Page: Stephen Yagman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: 76.175.73.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported for rampant vandalism on Stephen Yagman page. Now has violated WP:3RR (see [252], [253]). Quis separabit? 01:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reported

Result: Article semiprotected six months by User:SlimVirgin. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)