Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292

User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: declined)

Pages:

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

American Petroleum Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Nature of edit warring User HughD is engaging in an edit war to add a particular Mother Jones citation to several climate change related pages. The entry was added nearly verbatim to several articles. It was removed or edited by 4 other editors who objected to the inclusion. The quality of the source is currently a discussion topic on two talk pages without consensus (Aug 19 [[1]], Aug 17th [[2]]) talk pages. Hugh has inserted/reinserted the questioned link 9 times just today (Aug 22).

Previous insertions on various pages: Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change Initial:[[3]] Reinsertions:[[4]][[5]] - Removed by two different editors

American Petroleum Institute Initial:[[6]] Reinsertions:(This insertion by IP address[[7]])[[8]][[9]] - Removed by two editors

ExxonMobil Initial:[[10]] Reinsertions:[[11]][[12]] - Removed by one editor

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Initial:[[13]] Reinsertion:[[14]][[15]] - Removed by one editor

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Initial:[[16]] Reinsertions[[17]][[18]] - One editor modified the entry, two removed it.

The Heartland Institute Initial:[[19]] Reinsertions: [[20]][[21]] - Removed by two editors.

FreedomWorks Initial:[[22]] Reinsertions:[[23]][[24]] - Removed by one editor

A warning about edit warring was placed on HughD's talk page Aug 19th [[25]] The reasons for objecting to the inclusion are basically the same for all the above articles. Talk page discussions were started on Freedomworks (Aug 19 [[26]]) and The Heartland Insititute (Aug 17th [[27]]) talk pages.

Insertions after issue was raised on talk pages and without consensus Consensus has not been reached on either discussion page. HughD proposed an adition on the Heartland talk page on Aug 21st [[28]] whcih has not generated a consensus for insertion. As of Aug 22nd Hugh inserted the link 9 times (this list repeats all Aug 22nd insertions including those above) [[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]]

Link to warning

[[38]]

Link to notices [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]

• Comment - There is very clear evidence of wikihounding by multiple editors on these articles. These editors have been stonewalling material they disagree with even when it's reliably sourced and stated by multiple sources. With 4 out of 6 of these articles, reverting editors have never had previous involvement until HughD added material, and then they promptly remove the material he adds. I recommend a serious consideration of boomerang for harassment violations pertaining to WP:Hound. Their reasons for reverting range from "looks like gossip to me", to citing false consensus, and then changing the reason to BLP violations. These editors are the ones who've repeatedly reverted Hugh's addition while having no prior involvement on the article over the last 500 edits, which in some cases extend to over a decade:

user:Springee - [[42]] and [[43]]

user:Capitalistmojo - [[44]], [[45]], [[46]]

user:Arthur Rubin - [[47]]

Scoobydunk (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. I agree that I am one of the many editors opposed to Hugh's addition of often completely irrelevant, and almost always undue weight addition of material sourced to opinions of biased sources, but it's not WP:HOUNDING to check edits of an editor similar to edits found to be improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin:, where were the edits "found to be improper," exactly? I've zero desire to wade into this particular content dispute but the only actual discussion about this that I can find does not seem to suggest that the edits were "found to be improper." In fact, several other editors are making a pretty spirited defense of Hugh's edits there, and the only people arguing that the edits were "improper" are the same people who pretty obviously followed him there from previous dispute. Perhaps there's another discussion that I've missed? Fyddlestix (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, some of his editing has been found to be improper, as he is topic-banned from a topic due to (IMO) tendentious editing. I believe some of his edits have been found improper, but it is not worth verifying at the present time. It would only be worth my time researching if there were to be a consequence. And the typo you reverted above has some truth to it; Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him — what's the WP link for following an editor to support his edits? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the elephant in the room is that this is part of the ongoing conflict between editors who accept the findings of the scientific community with regard to climate change and other editors who reject those findings. Each side thinks they're right and the other is wrong. I don't think we're going to resolve that here. I do suggest that accusations of tag-teaming and the like ("Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him") are not helpful unless strong evidence to that effect can be provided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(That last comment, and much of this one, should be on a central discussion page, not here. However, I cannot find such a page.) The assertion that editors follow Hugh to support his edits is as well-supported as the allegation that editors follow Hugh to oppose his edits. And there should be no problem with this set of Hugh's edits once

1. Enough of
   1. The importance of MJ's writers' opinions
   2. The expertise of MJ's writers (making them "expert" opinions)
   3. The reliability of the article in question
2. and, the proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

are established. The "truth" of the epithets, which is what Short Brigade Harvester Boris seems to be concerned with, is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are these supporters following me around? From my point of view most days Wikipedia feels like me and a few other editors. Hugh (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out this interchange by the OP against this same user. Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#What defines excessive notifications? This was clearly a WP:FORUMSHOP effort against HughD. No notification was given to Hugh until I gave it in my response. The only reason I noticed this effort was because I happen to watch that somewhat obscure page because of past proposals I have made there. I was aware of the situation because I was lured in to the RfC in question at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: .2444M of .24140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, posted by HughD--a posting that was being hidden by Arthur Rubin. I obviously thought the invitation to the RfC was appropriate and elaborated to that effect. I think the act to hide it was quite improper. I say this primarily as an observer to this fact but there is a very easy to trace history showing the complaining "me too" group of users Arthur Rubin, capilitalismojo and collect act in concert to gang up on content in many articles. They all appear to be adept technicians at maintaining a certain WP:POV in all the articles they are involved in. That frequently involves trying to remove, alter or hide the kind of content HughD and a few others try to include. I consider that troika with a little help form a few others that can easily be identified from the history of a large group of articles (and probably their own editing histories) to be acting almost as Bill Cosby's lawyers trying to keep information under wraps. So they have come here again ganging up and forum shopping to plead their obviously non-neutral case to anyone who they might ensnare in helping their effort. I would discount any of the complaints of this group on a wholesale basis. Wikipedia is about reporting sourced facts. HughD generally is doing a good job of providing facts and sources. Those facts and sources do not necessarily agree with the WP:AGENDA; the POV this group is pushing. So they are using every trick in the book to go after their opposition. 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 August 2015

Your comment regarding forum shopping is incorrect. First, HughD was the editor who suggested I seek input from the Canvassing talk page ([[48]] Aug 3rd, "You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions.") Second, it seems that HughD was the one who first suggested forum shopping after telling me I should post there.Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#What defines excessive notifications? Springee (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course I never recommended forum shopping to anyone. At a noticeboard you repeated pleaded in vain for administrator attention to what you insisted was a "general" question about policy that was independent of current events, and I suggested a policy talk page. Once at the policy talk page, you could not help yourself but to re-iterate your grief illustrated with copious detail from your noticeboard posting. Hugh (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Thank you for your support in improving our encyclopedia through summarizing significant points of view. Like you, I too was disappointed to see the repeated deletion of RfC notices and updates by an involved administrator of our project; please see WP:AE. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems this should be moved to WP:ANI for review re: all those involved as it is quite obviously not a simple edit warring problem. But, as I stuck my toe in the water on one of the articles, I ain't gonna move or close it. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the conflict surrounding Hugh, Arthur and others is clearly getting out of hand here. Hugh's been reported to ANI three times in the last month or so (twice by Springee), and Hugh just filed another AE filing against Arthur (his second in about the same time frame). There's a long history of animosity and not-so-great behavior on both sides here. FWIW, though, I think there is clear evidence of Hugh being followed around by other editors here, and that may be relevant to how this particular report is handled. Just taking Springee as an example:

* He followed Hugh to The Heartland Institute, where he has reverted one of Hugh's edits. (as have you, Arthur).

* He followed Hugh to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, where he reverted him twice: [49][50].

* He followed Hugh to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, where he reverted Hugh (and Arthur reverted Hugh twice: [51][52], after also having followed him there).

* He's followed Hugh to various other talk pages: [53].

* He's complained about HughD at ANI [54][55] twice within a very short space of time, and made the edit warring complaint that we're discussing right now.

* He even showed up at a GA review that Hugh was working on, on an article he's never edited or shown any interest in before, to blame Hugh for article issues and say that the article shouldn't even be "B" class.

All that just over the past couple of weeks. This seems like excessive overlap & following to me - and that's just one the least active of several editors who seem to be following Hugh around after the recent unpleasantness at Americans for Prosperity (perhaps for longer, I don't know). I'm not defending any edit warring that Hugh may or may not have done, but the way some editors seem to be targeting Hugh's edits and working together to revert him makes me quite uncomfortable here, particularly given the open animosity which some of these editors have shown towards Hugh in the past. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• All but one of those are related to the same MJ article HughD was inserting into a number of articles. The result of the previous ANI was a topic block[[56]]. In that ANI you said, "I have slowly come around to the view that he is indeed editing disruptively." and "I suggest a formal warning - for HughD (disruptive editing, page ownership), with a block to follow if his problematic behavior does not improve." After the associated RfC was closed he WP:BLUDGEONed the editor who ruled against his proposal [[57]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As my post there made very clear, my comment at ANI was motivated solely by Hugh's insistence on replying to damn near every comment made on a specific RFC. That he was topic banned (not blocked) for two weeks for that does not give you license to follow him around from article to article, reverting edits which are clearly not vandalism (often with the help of other editors who also appear to be following him), or to take pot shots at him when a GA he worked on comes up for review. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Addressing some comments

• This is not a simple case of editors disagreeing on the topic of climate change. The inserted text quotes the opinion portion of a Mother Jones article that lists what the magazine (or at least the author of the article) calls "the dirty dozen of climate change [disinformation]". The article does list some reasons why they picked each of the 12. Those reasons would be potentially valid additions to the various Wikipedia articles. However, the insertion in question was simply stating that the subject of each article was listed by Mother Jones as one of the dirty dozen of climate change disinformation. The inclusion of an organization on the Mother Jones list is an opinion of MJ alone. Mother Jones didn't set out standards for inclusion so we have no way to know if the list was generated objectively. Even if the list was generated via an objective method that doesn't mean the list is notable. Lists such as Oscar winners and US News' Best Colleges are notable because others make reference to them. That does not appear to be the case with the MJ list. Thus the issue with the insertion is that it is an opinion (WP:RS) and not a notable one (WP:UNDUE). Others may disagree with this argument and the proper place to settle the disagreement is on article talk pages before reinserting the removed references.
• The discussion regarding the citation and insertion in question was started on two talk pages starting on August 17th and 19th.[[58]][[59]] HughD stopped the insertions/reinsertions on the 19th and joined in the talk page discussions. He setup a proposal on one talk page seeking consensus to add the reference here [[60]] on Aug 21st. On Aug 22nd, without consensus and against the objections of a number of editors added the link a total of nine times (listed in the original complaint). This is clearly disruptive editing, not a disagreement about whitewashing or blackwashing a topic.Springee (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Editor Collet quested the insertion on the Christopher Monckton talk page.[[61]]. Editor Dmcq was initially in favor of inclusion but was, I believe, persuaded against inclusion as was being attempted and commented to HughD once engaged in discussion on The Heartland Institute's talk page. He stated, "I am getting to agree more and more with the idea that you are simply spamming a page of little content. "[[62]] This is in addition to objections and counter arguments by myself, Arthur Rubin, and Capitalistmojo. This does not prove those who objected are correct or that the arguments put forth for inclusion are flawed. It does say that there was not a consensus for inclusion and thus the reinsertions starting on August 22nd were done after a cycle of insertion, removal and failed consensus. (Please note this bullet point was added subsequent to the previous points) Springee (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee 08:53 21 August 2015 I asked you on your talk page, "Thank you for your recent contributions to The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks and their respective talk pages. These two articles were created in late 2005. May I respectfully ask, what brought you to these articles for the first time, 18 August 2015? Thank you." with edit summary "question for colleague." Two hours later you deleted the question from a colleague from your talk page, without reply. May I please ask again? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ronz gave you an appropriate answer here [[63]].Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee "nine times" Two weeks ago, you successfully wrote me up for not being perfectly even-handed in notifying all of an article's WikiProjects of an RfC, this week it's for conscientiously WP:SOURCEMINE-ing a "dirty dozen" article. No doubt had I not, you would have wrote me up for that, too. Hugh (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• You were given a two week topic block for a variety of reasons including my pair of ANIs.[[64]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee Thank you for providing an exhaustive listing of my edits this past week. I am an active editor! I understand you do not like my edits. I understand you do not like the source, Mother Jones (magazine). May I ask, could I trouble you to please categorize the edits in terms of 1RR, 2RR, and 3RR, if any, for the convenience of our colleagues reading this report here on this noticeboard? In the interest of fairness, might it be relevant to note the dates of the edits in your report, how many days intervened, and which had intervening talk page discussion, which if any were straight reverts and which demonstrated refinement through collaboration in talk page discussion and responding to edit summary comments? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC) "Removed by two different editors" etc. May I ask, again in the interest of fairness, and completeness, might it be useful to readers of your report to note the identities of the participants? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Your previous requests to have editors jump through hoops of your making resulted in a stern warning from an admin. [[65]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for HughD: It appears you felt you were adding the MJ reference via a BRD cycle. Your insertions around the 17th and 18th on the various articles would be the BOLD change. Other editors objected and reverted the changes (sometimes more than once). The issues were moved to the talk page where you joined the discussions. Why did you reinsert the disputed material on the 22nd when consensus was clearly not reached? Were those insertions supported by the BRD cycle you cited when inserting the material nine times that day (including the reinsertions when the disputed material was removed by other editors)? I see this as the critical issue because adding that material when there is clear disagreement looks like an edit war to me. Springee (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand you believe all my edits look like edit warring to you. I understand that once you remove a contribution from a colleague, you expect it to stay removed. I understand that I make edits with which you disagree at risk of block or ban. Your report above has no dates, has identified no 1RR, no 2RR, no 3RR, names no counter parties to the edit warring you allege, and makes no distinction between reverts and refinement through collaboration. In the interest of fairness and completeness, please put some more time in on your report. If you would be so kind as to ask after a specific edit I would share my thoughts. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Administrative Input The edit warring listed above is part of a wider pattern of disruptive editing by HughD. The editor has 3 recent blocks plus the recent 2 week topic edit ban.

• He is currently abusing the ANI system to attack another editor [[66]]
• Disruptive behavior on the Donors Trust talk page (insulting/being condescending to other editors)[[67]] and the replies of other editors: [[68]][[69]]
• He appears to be engaged in disruptive editing and warring on Fred C. Koch. On Aug 19th he proposed a draft RfC to insert some contested material [[70]]. Nearly a week later he arbitraily decides to not issue the RfC [[71]] and inserts the disputed material without gaining consensus [[72]]. Editor Comatmebro removed the material [[73]] which HughD reinserted 11 minutes later [[74]]. HughD did not (as of this writing) address Comatmebro's concerns posted on the article talk page [[75]][[76]].

This editor has shown a clear pattern of disruptive editing and waring. I would ask that the administrators please address this problem. Springee (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also be sure to address the wikihounding done by editors listed above.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The first time you made this claim, administrator Arthur Rubin wrote

"Nonsense. I agree that I am one of the many editors opposed to Hugh's addition of often completely irrelevant, and almost always undue weight addition of material sourced to opinions of biased sources, but it's not WP:HOUNDING to check edits of an editor similar to edits found to be improper."

I agree with him on this. There is no evidence of wikihounding. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You and him need to both read WP policies relating to wikihounding because it explicitly forbids the harassment HughD has been receiving. Also, you're agreeing to a red herring argument. Yes, wikihounding doesn't forbid "checking" other user's edits, but it does forbid and address following editors and reverting their content on multiple articles. There is ample evidence of this not to mention the multiple frivolous reversions, and warnings given to Hugh, which is also a separate part of Wikihounding with ample evidence.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that it isn't the administrator and the editor with nine years experience who don't understand policy, but rather it is you who need to "read WP policies relating to wikihounding". That policy does not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Declined — this is largely an arbitration or AE issue that's been brought to a largely inappropriate venue. Multiple people seem to disagree on both sides of this set of edits, whether or not the revert history demonstrates so on each page, and there's clearly some advocacy (and/or WP:COI) going on from several of the editors involved in this discussion—and this makes sense, considering the articles at hand cover, what, 3 ARB topics? I've added a couple DS/alerts to the some other people involved in the dispute, while it looks like others already have received one in the last year, so my guess is the next step are 1RRs or topic bans for anyone who continues to edit war or so much as thinks about participating in one. The current report is otherwise relatively stale. --slakr^\ talk / 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: no action)

Page: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 18:47, 26 August 2015
2. Revision as of 18:50, 26 August 2015
3. Revision as of 20:17, 26 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction). See WP:GS/SCW Erlbaeko (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a 1RR restriction on the article. Now that I am aware of it, I self-reverted [80]. Note that the "3RR warning" that Erlbaeko claims he posted on my talk page is from June, it is for a dispute on another article (where I didn't break any rules) and which does not mention the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I also feel compelled to point out that Erlbaeko is being dishonest here (that's in addition to his false claim that he made a "3RR warning"). He links to three versions of the page trying to make it seem like I reverted 3 times. This is false. Two of the edits were consecutive. I reverted twice, not three times as Erlbaeko is pretending.

The revert itself was a no-brainer as the sources being used are clearly non-reliable, and include the Berliner-umschau, which is a far-right blog run by Gerhoch Reisegger, "an Austrian right-wing journalist and conspiracy theorists" who "openly associates with Neo-Nazis" and a buddy of Horst_Mahler. So, um, hell yeah I removed that junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has self reverted his most recent revert and seems to intend to abide by the 1RR restrictions on this article. I also note that there's no way for an editor not previously involved in this area to know that this article was even under sanctions - there is no edit notice upon editing the page, or even a notice of any kind on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the page was lacking any kind of notice or warning, so I went ahead and added the appropriate notices (edit/talk page) to help prevent the confusion for other editors, as well, in the future. --slakr^\ talk / 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Slakr, I like to make wikignomish edits on multiple pages. Is there a convenient way of listing all pages with 1RR restrictions so I can go through the list and make sure they all have notices? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be quite useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Guy Macon: WP:AWB would be the way to go. As long as you're manually supervising the edits one by one, you don't need to file a WP:BRFA. You'd probably want to cross the category listing with the transclusion / included-in listing for the talk pages. You can grab either an admin or template editor to help with adding edit notices on the pages themselves (obviously anyone can add the talk page notice). My guess, though, is that someone already ran through and did this when the arb case was closed, so likely only pages created since the ARB close are going to need it. *shrug* --slakr^\ talk / 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DN-boards1 reported by User:Ashill (Result: warned)

Page: Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DN-boards1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82] And subsequent three edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, since this single editor has been reverted by four different editors without time to bring to talk.

Comments:

• After I submitted this, the editor has ceased edit warring and brought the issue to talk. I suggest a block is not necessary, assuming no further reverts. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• I didn't get the 3RR warning until after the last revert. Apologies. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw in the history that the last revert was after I issued the warning so I brought it here, but it may have only been by seconds; the timestamp on both is 19:43. Easy to believe that the editor didn't see the warning. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Warned (so long as DN-boards1 (talk · contribs) does not continue to revert; if so, either re-open or grab an admin and point to this thread). Also, DN-boards1, be warned that WP:3RR isn't a permit to revert; several editors are in opposition to your change, so you should seek dispute resolution before re-introducing the text or you can still be blocked for general edit warring. @Ashill: Indeed; the exact timestamps, in case you're interested, were 2015-08-27T19:43:20Z and 2015-08-27T19:43:50Z (literally 30 seconds difference :P). --slakr^\ talk / 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JordanGero reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned)

Page

Talk:European colonization of the Americas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678086902 by Maunus (talk) Your Rfc was utterly inaccurate; reverted to form that almost all of the editors have already responded to."
2. 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678073934 by Maunus (talk) The conversation has begun there; please do not relocate needlessly- it only adds confusion."
3. 19:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas? */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "/* RFC */ do not change other people's text, threatening to edit war not good"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also the warning on August 15th and the discussion on the editor's talk page. There's discussion on the article talk page but he's still changing the RfC to his preferred wording. The earliest diff is one of a series of edits changing the text of the RfC. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The user ·maunus worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ·maunus. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ·maunus's contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. JordanGero (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that your RfC asks an entirely different question, and hence makes it impossible for the closer to know what the consensus is actually about. The other thing is that you hjave blatantly disregarded all guidelines for talkpage behavior, RfC behavior and editwarring - even after having been courteously pointed towards them by another user and an admin.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is embarrassing, I seem to have miscounted. You did however say "if you change it again, I will revert it." You've been reverted as you really can't change someone else's RfC. If you agree not to change it again I'm happy to have this dropped. But you can't go around revising other people's posts, even if you think they are wrong. You've compared your changing the RfC to editors changing text in articles and don't seem to see it as a problem. Oh, and if I've made an error on a subpage of mine, please let me know but don't go around changing my subpages. As for your statement that the RfC was changed after most editors had responded, everyone but you has agreed with Maunus that the word 'seize' should be used - they've all answered no, you're the only 'yes', so it appears they understood the issues. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am aware now that changing the Rfc after it has been posed is not to be done, along with that which you mentioned about your subpages, and will not modify or revert it again. And in regards to most editors who participated in the survey siding with the editor Maunus, I mentioned this to him when he first reverted my reverts of his original Rfc so as to communicate to him that whatever substantive change there may have been, it was not to the detriment of his position (or at least not apparently so). JordanGero (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to with being detrimental to my position, the point is that your question is completely different and hence does not reflect my position. My RfC is a GENERAL question about the appropriateness of the word seize which you contended was inherently too loaded to neutrally describe aspects of the colonization. Your RfC is a specific question about whether to use the word seize in a specific sentence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. Edit: Or apparently not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by User:KoshVorlon that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand. JordanGero (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:JordanGero is warned for edit warring on the text of an RfC. Per the above, he has now agreed he "will not modify or revert it again." This editor created his account on July 9. New accounts that are very aggressive run the risk of being considered socks, and this suspicion is not always wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Alvandria reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 7 days)

Page

Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "That's absolutely not what it says, if you click through it says even for commercial purposes"
2. 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "im not in an edit war look at the source its creative commons thank you very much"
3. 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678255732 by Dr.K. (talk) Nowhere on that page does it say Getty Images" - Please note: It did, but Alvandria's sock at Commons changed it within minutes.
4. 07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "It's not an inlicensed photo, it's by author Kevin Winter who is known to publish photographs for public use under the Commons code"
5. 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "More recent picture (LS)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Justin Bieber. (TW★TW)"
2. 08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Justin Bieber. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring adding copyvio image of Bieber using a sockpuppet at Commons. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Image license was changed multiple times during the edit-war, including modifying the flicr license to remove the dollar sign with the diagonal line through it, signifying a restriction for commercial distribution. It seems the edit-warring editor has connections to the photographer at flickr as well as the uploader at Commons. Please see also my message at Diannaa's talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like a case of Flickr washing, as the image is tagged as Getty Images here and other places online. I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Here is an additional link to gossipcop.com of the same image in a double image format also indicating it as a Getty image. Another link calls it getty.jpg as part of its url. Meanwhile the flickr account has uploaded only this image. Looks like Flickr laundering indeed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Deleted at Commons. It also appears it is a repeatedly-deleted copyvio. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Going to such lengths to fake and change the licenses on multiple sites while edit-warring to add this copyvio into Bieber's article needs a block for disruptive editing in addition to any reasons for blocking due to the 3RR violation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing, edit warring etc. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Black Kite. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:122.56.208.164 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: protected)

Page: Pearl Going (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.56.208.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 122.56.209.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Incident includes IP-hopping]

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments: Repeated insertion of inappropriate material into a BLP, repeated over a long period of time; four reverts tonight in three hours. No substantive discussion by the IP, just accusations of vandalism. Article subject is involved in several public controversies; among other problems, article reports her accusations against others as established facts, misrepresenting sources to do so. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 21:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Robin Lakritz reported by User:UnequivocalAmbivalence (Result: declined)

Page: In the Beginning There Was Light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robin Lakritz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments: I am currently at an impasse as I wish to refrain from edit warring but I have been able to make to headway in my discussions and my arguments seem to go ignored, while the other party seems to have no problem breaking he 3RR, leaving me with few options. As I am relatively new here I do not know of another way to handle this, if I have done anything wrong please inform me and I will do my best to correct the behavior, and if I am wrong about policy please inform me as I think the main dispute here is over policy understanding

UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for my 3RR mistake. UnequicoalAmbivalence made a bold edit and deleted valuable information with reputable sources. I think he is not being neutral and trying push an agenda. I also feel my arguments are being ignored by him. He should bring additional information from reputable sources but not blanking relevant one because he does not like it or the film. So mediation of a third party would be helpful. Robin Lakritz (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you are accusing me of pushing a bias when it seems that you started your wikipedia account with the sole purpose of adding heavily biased information to a single article, which to me seems like a clear violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please see WP:ADVOCACY, from which I quote "Wikipedia is not a venue to Right Great Wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia"(Emphasis added). Also, in WP:FRINGELEVEL "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community....Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."(Emphasis added) Breatharianism, the subject of this documentary, is clearly established by a vast consensus of the scientific community to be a pseudoscience. All CURRENT scientific studies categorically refute the claims being made. There is no debate about this. The section you added presents material as if this were not the case. It presents controversial studies as if they were widely accepted, and omits all mention of said controversies (For instance labeling of the non-peer reviewed and widely criticized Prahlad Jani Case Study as "Exceptional" in Wikipedia's voice). The policy is very, very clear on this point. Also, the directory stating on the webpage for his film that he received an email from someone is NOT reliable sourcing for proof to state the supposed contents of that email as a fact and then to directly attribute it to the claimed sender. This is not verifiable information from a reliable source by any means.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Though if you both continue edit warring, you risk being blocked. Please seek dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will pursue Dispute Resolution as you suggested. However, would you help clarify for me what counts as a revert so that I do not make this mistake in the future, as I was under the impression from my reading of the 3RR that what I reported was 5 reverts in less than 3 hours, but I have no desire to raise issues when policy has not been broken.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TheHoax reported by User:Ians18 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (adds Surface RT, parenthetical disambiguation, and reverts changes to simplify the model comparison chart because it has enough context)

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]

Older:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]

More (he keeps changing it even though we have reached consensus):

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:TheHoax#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Microsoft_Surface#Request_for_More_Input and Talk:Microsoft_Surface#Reaching_Consensus and Talk:Microsoft_Surface#Oppose_2

Comments:
Not only have we reached a consensus, but TheHoax is blatantly changing the page to fit his preference. Ians18 (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: TheHoax's most recent behaviour has been particularly disingenuous. Instead of continuing to make his case on the talk page or yielding to consensus, he has chosen to edit the Microsoft Surface article (and related templates) in a manner not consistent with the prevailing viewpoint; specifically, he is misrepresenting that viewpoint as "use the phrase 'first generation Surface' everywhere" ([111]), is editing articles accordingly (in some cases producing ridiculous constructs like "original ARM-based first generation Surface" [112]) and then using the result to present his own viewpoint (to use "Surface RT" everywhere) as superior. In reality, all editors in support of the prevailing viewpoint (that is, everyone but TheHoax) have agreed that article content should use simply "Surface" whenever possible and only employ disambiguating phrases where necessary (i.e. when the intended subject is not obvious from context). Such behaviour is essentially a strawman tactic and thus unconducive to the overall goal of improving the article. Indrek (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Gazprompt reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:51, 27 August 2015
2. 00:32, 28 August 2015
3. 06:52, 28 August 2015
4. 16:56, 28 August 2015
5. 1:12, 29 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the content was trimmed per consensus, since the page already is to long. Subsequently the award section was moved to a new article, which Gazprompt edited on August 27. Gazprompt also did not respond at the talk page about his edits.prokaryotes (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Le petit fromage reported by User:Michig (Result:Blocked)

Page: Leicester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Le petit fromage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]. See also edit summaries.

Comments:

User:Le petit fromage initially changed both the IPAC-en pronunciation and added an unsourced 'local' pronunciation to the article, which was incorrect. I reverted as neither one was supported by sources amd I added a source for the IPAC-en that I found in Mirriam-Webster. They reverted, removing the source, but then changed the 'local' pronunciation to a slightly different, also unsourced version. This was reverted by User:Sabrebd who indicated in their edit summary that Le petit fromage needed to source the change or leave it alone. Lpf reverted agin, removing the source, claiming that the sourced version was unsourced and that their version, for which they had provided no source, was sourced. I reverted this as clearly disruptive and warned Lpf for edit-warring. Lpf reverted for a fourth time, claiming that I was refusing to discuss it when in fact the only discussion has been started by me on their talk page, to which they responded only with insults. Lpf then added a comment on their talk page (diff) calling me a 'cunt'. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lpf has continued the attacks on his tak page: diff. --Michig (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another editor removed the personal attack and Lpf reverted them: diff. --Michig (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for both edit warring and personal attacks
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:212.93.105.1 reported by User:Euphoria42 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678297394 by Voidiss (talk) It is not verifiable that leaked text is actual draft"
2. 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "There is no verification that it is real actual text of TPP draft"
3. 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Removed vandalized (change without explanation) change"
4. 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "again vandalism! changes without explanation! Euphoria42 must be banned!"
5. 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "I talked - zero response. Same as AndyTheGrump my sourced changes in article, I only stand for same standards for "citing verifiable sources for all statements". Read my talk with him: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:WikiLeaks#Illegal_Wikileaks"
6. 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "first of all my first two or three changes were removed without explanation (vandalism). So I did not start editing war - I just want to see consistence in implementing policy of Wikipedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Message re. WikiLeaks (HG) (3.1.14)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm kinda lost here, they keep removing the content and leaving messages on my talk page. I feel like I'm doing the right thing, but let me know if i am wrong. Asked in #wikipedia-en on freenode and this seemed like the right course of action. -Euphoria42 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I warned User 212.93.105.1 in my edit summary not to edit war, but to no avail. The is no doubt about the 3RR violation, which continues. Suggest a preventative indef block. Jusdafax 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. The user is very confident they are correct and, from the talk page, it sounds like they plan to keep on reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ankhsoprah2 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankhsoprah2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ali_Khamenei&oldid=678525844

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

Comments:
Editor is clearly in bad faith. After they broke WP:3RR, I specifically requested that they self-revert, to which they responded that they would "WP:BOOMERANG" me. They cite an undo I did earlier today[129] which was completely good-faith and constructive, and for which the person who I undid (BlueSalix) thanked me.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm the one here who is in good faith. This is not part of editwarring, it is where I added more sources after Anders Feder asked for more sources. And this is new editwarring regarding different content, started by Anders Feder. Also, I have not reverted for the same content three times. Anders Feder have broken WP:3RR: [130][131][132]. And also Anders Feder editwarred in this article with others recently too:[133][134]. Anders Feder is very pro Khamenei, he keeps a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes, but refuses to keep the sourced info that his nephew Dr.Mahmoud Moradkhani claimed that Khamenei is lying with regard to nuke fatwa, practicing the Shia doctrine of Taqiya.(sources: [135][136][137][138][139][140]). I didn't initially add this info, and the sources may not be reliable, so instead of editwarring, I moved it to talkpage for discussion and consensus. I added that some media sources refer to Khamenei as dictator (sources: [141][142][143]), and Anders Feder immediately removed it and threatened to report me.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Where have I made any effort to "keep a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes"? As is obvious from the talk page, you did not start the talk page discussion, even though you were obliged to per WP:ONUS.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I started the talkpage discussion here, even though you were obliged to start the discussion on talkpage, as you started the editwarring to remove this content with another editor here.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you trolling even the admins on this noticeboard? Anyone can see on the talk page that you did not start the talk page discussion. As for me being obliged to achieve consensus for disputed content you want to include - have you even read WP:ONUS? You also have failed to establish consensus that the sources are reliable in the first place. In total, you have flaunted both WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN repeatedly as well as WP:3RR.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my comment that I started the discussion. And it's not about you being obliged to achieve consensus for disputed content I want to include. It's about sourced content added by someone else, not me, that you want to remove without consensus, potentially disrupting the article's neutral and balanced view.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing disputed content does not require previous consensus - it requires you to form consensus for putting it back in. How hard can it be to understand?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You just can't delete all of the sourced contents of Wikipedia, and then ask for consensuses on the talkpages.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

When the content is disputed and there no evidence that the sources are at all reliable, of course I can! That is the whole point of WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. What did you think the point was?--Anders Feder (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

First, there is no source that says that the content is disputed or Khamenei's nephew didn't say that. I did not revert when another editor reverted me, as that would make me cross 3rr & also due to WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. I started talkpage discussion. This reporting is due to the new editwarring regarding different content started by Anders Feder.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your wishful thinking, you have flaunted WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN four times over the course of your edit warring, and WP:3RR as well, and you didn't start the talk page discussion at all as anyone can see, even though you pretend you aren't aware of it.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the new comment you just edited one of your comments above to add[144], what is "neutral and balanced" about your adding WP:BLP material that is only supported by fringe conservative websites?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who first started to retroactively edit your comments here--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for even the slightest shred of evidence of your trolling accusation that I have made any effort to "keep a statement in the lede saying that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nukes".--Anders Feder (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As for your baseless accusation of me being "very pro Khamenei", that is just deeply ridiculous, and only adds to the picture that you are a troll. Here, for instance, I explicitly characterize his rule as a military dictatorship predicated on Khamenei's cult of personality.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: an IP also accused Anders Feder of being pro supreme dictator Khamenei here--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, an obvious lie, and only more evidence that you are a bad faith, trolling editor. Do explain how my comments e.g. here are "pro-Khamenei".--Anders Feder (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Enough of the personal attacks. Just focus on content. Despite your repeated personal attacks and threats of reporting me, I said in good faith that I didn't want to report you, but if you reported me,that would be WP:BOOMERANG for you. This whole thing that will get you blocked was totally unnecessary, and that could be avoided.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't said or done a single thing in good faith as anyone can see. Your casting aspersions in an attempt to incur chilling effects against efforts to stop your disruption only compounds matters.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly not someone in goodfaith, but someone with an axe to grind and a point to push.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Anders Feder violated 3rr: [145][146][147]. And also Anders Feder editwarred in this article with others very recently too:[148][149][150].--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, [151] isn't edit warring in any way as the editor who I partially undid completely agreed with my action, as can be seen from their thank log. The last of your links is an edit by another user, and has nothing to do with me.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:74.130.113.160 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "dont remove DOCTRINAL citations,............doing so deprives others of ORIGINAL SOURCES."
2. 23:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "REMOVED NON-DOCTRINAL NONSENSE AND REVISION BY PEOPLE WITHOUT EVIDENCES, OR CITATIONS"
3. 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678680943 by JimRenge (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) to 23:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "removing commentarialist garbage which has nothing to do with doctrine"
   2. 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Relation to Vedic and Hindu philosophy */"
   3. 23:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678679623 by 20040302 (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) to 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "correcting lies in this passage with actual doctrine"
   2. 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "fix error"
   4. 23:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Views on self */"
   5. 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Views & speculations on the Soul rejected by Advaita & the Vedas also */"
   6. 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "fixing commentary and opinion with doctrine"
   7. 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC) ""
   8. 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Anatta. (TW)"
2. 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anatta. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Allcaps commentary on our lies and insults galore Ogress _smash! 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Benjil reported by User:Debresser (Result: declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156] [157] Proof warning was acknowledged and willfully ignored: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mizrahi_Jews#Ovadia_Yosef

Comments: Please note that I am not reporting a violation of the 3RR rule here. I am reporting an edit warrior, who made an edit which I contest, and who has specifically stated his intent to continue editing despite my warning that his edit goes against previously established consensus. Not to mention WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. A picture was changed on the page in September and I saw it only now. The discussion to change it involved two people, when one asked to change the picture based on false and unsourced information. I reverted the change when I saw it (only now, sorry) and provided a source to prove that Ovadia Yosef, being one o the most important figure in the Jewish world over the last century and the most important Mizrahi Jew of the period had to be on the pictures gallery, in particular when he is by far the most influent and well known figure among all the people who appear on this gallery. Debresser opposed for the sake of opposing, providing no argument, no source, and insulting me without trying to resolve the issue. Benjil (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Was that talkpage section not there to solve the issue?
2. The discussion involved Mr. Sort It Out, me, Off-shell and ran over a month, from September 28, 2014 till October 31, 2014. So if Benjil comes now, he is close to a year too late, and he will have to show a change of consensus before he has the right to undo my revert of his edit.
3. Just saying that his edit is incontestable is not enough, and shows he is simply pushing his POV.
4. I infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi whom he is adding to this collage, however, he must come to terms with the fact that not all are of that same opinion.

Please notice that it is Benjil's behavior I am reporting here, while I am perfectly willing to continue the discussion on the talkpage, but Benjil must be made to understand that while that discussion is ongoing, he must not repeat his edit. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You "infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi", that's the most interesting I must admit. Speaking Hebrew means being a supporter of Shas now ? Since I specifically said in the talk page that I do not particularly like this rabbi (nor dislike him), it proves once again that you are not reading. And you omit any discussion about sources, a very interesting point also. By the way an important point I forgot: before I made any change, I made a call for discussion and waited almost a week before implementing the change. Debresser did not answer then but only after I reverted to the previous situation. He also did not try to solve the situation in the discussion, just opposing any change for the sake of opposing and a fake consensus of two people, and in fact only one since Mr. Sort It Out is the only one who had any opinion on the subject. I gave a sources (and can provide as much as needed) and no counter-argument was made, I was in my right to proceed with the change, or more exactly, reverting to the previous situation. Benjil (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though 3 editors is not much, it is still consensus. Not to mention that the edit stood unchallenged for almost a year. Even at this moment, after you raised the issue almost a year later, you are the only editor who wants this rabbi in the collage.

In any case, you have no right to insist on the edit after you see it is being opposed. Again, it is your behavior in the face of opposition and the not unfounded claim of a lack of consensus, that brings me here. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And still not a word about sources and no argument. "Consensus", you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. There was no consensus. There was one editor who wanted Ovadia removed, you who had no clue on the subject and believed what he told you, and a third who did not discuss the issue. So no, no consensus. And a consensus based on false information and in contradiction to sources has no value. It seems this is just an issue of your pride here and nothing to do with improving the article. Benjil (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You should hear yourself: I had no clue on the subject and believe whatever editors tell me, false information. Why don't you throw a conspiracy claim in for good measure, or say that I am a nitwit? I have a clear opinion on the subject, and it is the same as the consensus opinion. My pride is no more involved than yours, so let's not go there (WP:NPA). Anyways, your arguments are typical of POV editors, sorry to say.

What was that about sources? Man, we are talking about adding a picture to a collage. What do sources have to do with that? Debresser (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. @Debresser and Benjil: be advised that if this continues, both will end up blocked. Seek dispute resolution (perhaps a third opinion to start?) --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Slakr. Edit warring is not the same as violating 3RR. If you don't know that, then don't edit this noticeboard, please. In the mean time, you can read up about this on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Or perhaps you didn't notice above, that I stated specifically that the problem is edit warring without a 3RR violation. Therefore, there was nothing to decline. I changed would like you to change the result to "closed without administrative action".

Please also notice, that I not happy with your warning. I don't think you should give out warnings about a block to editors who are trying to stop others from making non-consensus edits without violating 3RR. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Slakr, since Debresser refuses to discuss (see here: [159]), he even erased my post on his talk page ([160]), I ask for his blocking. Benjil (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You can discuss the right course of action on the talkpage, where I am actively replying to your posts, and any behavioral issues are being discussed here. I am perfectly within my rights to erase your post from my talkpage, see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings.

At the same time, let me remind you that if you try to enforce your opinion by editing the article, that would be disruptive editing, and you would be almost guaranteed to be blocked. As I suggested on the talkpage, your best course of action is to open an Rfc to see if perhaps consensus has changed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678390672 by Calidum (talk) Reverted to original version. Lets take this to the talk page"
2. 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678376362 by Calidum (talk) Not redundant, less specific as a matter of fact. Please explain why it's so"
3. 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678363821 by JuanRiley (talk) I don't see anything wrog with it.. why delete it?"
4. 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677361960 by JuanRiley (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:British_Empire#Eroded.

Comments:

N0n3up also attempted to WP:CANVASS two other editors to join in the edit war [161] [162] and ascribed a hidden agenda to the attempt by myself and JuanRiley (talk · contribs) to remove redundant phrasing. Calidum 04:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to vex you to the point that you had to take it to the notice board. But if you reffered to my actions and my summoning of other users.. I summoned Sitush and Twobells since Sitush was familiar with me in a previous discussion in the same article and Twobells just happened to be the last person to edit the talk page to get an outside opinion, not to "canvass" or use backup to my advantage as you accused of doing. And saying: And don't get me wrong if you are one of those staunchly patriots whose edit was patriotic-oriented is not a personal attack whatsoever, I was trying to give a figurative concept of someone who edits out of patriotic purpose and there is nothing of a personal attack in that, and notice the And don't get me wrong part which would make your claim of a personal attack more invalid than it already is. And also, I'm not denying that America was catching up to Britain economically, I simply stated that removing the some of part of the sentence would be too general, that's all. And to think it would all be a short talk. (N0n3up (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

My two cents (no bells): Truth be told, the issue was a nuanced one about connotation of "eroded" vs "eroded some of". On the other hand, Non3up did violate reversion policy. Moreover this is not the first time he did so. He escaped blockage for that past performance. Worse is that his ad hominem attacks (as discussed above by Calidum) were also similar to prior instances. At the very least I would hope he be told to take it the talk page quicker...and not indulge his imagination about others motivations. Juan Riley (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley Apart from the reached consensus.. It was never incorrect from the start. Your edits here and here are the same types of edit that started this discussion from the start. Even though the sentence are well placed with their meanings, you rearrange the words as you see fit and replace them with other words that might seem to you correct but are incorrect in reality. Thats the problem with making edits like these like you always seem to do. Not to mention you stalking my edits like here after our dispute here. Either way, consensus was reached in the talk page that it stays as before, the correct version you repeatedly tried to rearrange. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:JuanRiley#Recent_edits

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:JuanRiley#Recent_edits Juan Riley (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley Exactly. Shall I bring our discussion here instead? (N0n3up (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

Talk page reversions now? Juan Riley (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley What? (N0n3up (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

If you want to say something, say it. Its beginning to be hard to understand you. (N0n3up (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

[163] Juan Riley (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Really shouldn't ask it here..but exactly how does one link to another's revert of ones own comment/edits on this board? Juan Riley (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a diff, just like for any other edit, Juan Riley , e.g. in this case. [164]. See Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours And don't talk like this about users in the future, please. Comment on the edit, not the editor, and don't discuss editors' motivations, which you can't know. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

User:MusicAngels reported by User:Neuroxic (Result: No violation)

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

Note: The Talk page for Birdman (film) has been subject to many recent disruptive edits from IP-hopping disruption and is currently page protected by User:Drmies. After I tried to address some of this by hatting the disruptive text, stronger measures were then taken by User:Drmies to protect the page. Several IP-accounts have now been blocked and if a further list of the IP-hopping addresses are needed then I can provide them if requested. I am creating a subsection here for reviewers of this page to help track the disruptive IP hopping which appears to have extended to this page. MusicAngels (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverts that begun edit war: reverting undos

Further reverts from the user.

Evidence for poor conduct from user not directly relating to article additions:

MusicAngels removing someone's notice that MusicAngels has had a (recent) history, and is under scrutiny, and that I should take my complaint to MusicAngels' talk page.

MusicAngels ignoring a notice on their talk page, claiming it to be a single purpose account.

Recent notice by another editor on MusicAngels' talk page, that MusicAngels needs to stop disruptive editing. (Bgwhite's comment at the bottom of the page.)

posting warnings on my talk page

Recently (24 Aug) being told by ANI to stop disruptive editing.

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the penultimate sections

Comments:
I present an outline of the editing events on the article page and talk page here, in chronological order.

1. MusicAngels creates a new section to expand information about the ending.
2. I undo the edit, saying that a new section is not needed, and the additional info could be incorporated into what's already there.
3. MusicAngels then does this, and also adds significantly to the plot section, claming to "remove WP:OR as stated in delisting GAR. Adding Riggan's interaction with his daughter which the director and writers have indicated are essential to the plot."
4. I undo the plot expansion edit, noting that it has incorrect details, that it is too long, and looks out of place. I then take issue with the newly merged writing details, reverting reverting the edit and leaving comments on the talk page.
5. MusicAngels then undoes my revert of the writing section, claming that a "Rewrite of the entire Plot section has been requested by the delisting review editor," and that MusicAngels is "in agreement & consensus with the delisting editor to remove the WP:OR issues. Establish consensus on Talk prior to further reverts." MusicAngels then also undoes my revert of the plot section, saying "No reason given on Talk for this undo. Make consensus on Talk prior to further reverts."
6. During this time, MusicAngels justifies his/her edits on the talk page, but ignores my comments, instead writing "The article you have written was delisted because of defects enumerated at the last review of your article and your issues with poor research WP:OR."
7. I then undo the reverts, and respond to MusicAngel's comments. I say that MusicAngels should look at the article sources and properly read the delisting reassessment (and the DYK nomination that started it), since I was one of the people who wanted it to be delisted. Note that at no stage in either of these is it suggested that the plot section needs a rewrite, (contrary to the clams of MusicAngels) and that the issue with 'WP:OR' was simply the interpretation of one source, not generally poor research. (As a general comment about the article as a whole, during the reassessment process Blethering Scot said "The article is clearly well written and on that front I can't find much fault at all.")
8. MusicAngels then undoes my reverts again, and in terms of reasoning basically repeats the same stuff as they said the previous time. I now choose to look for outside help, rather than try and reason with MusicAngels for yet another time and be ignored.

Note that at many times, MusicAngels claims that I'm not following WP:BRD, despite the fact that under the 'Discuss' section of this policy, it says "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made," so in fact by reverting my undos of the bold edit, MusicAngels is not following the policy which he/she's quoting.

I'm not sure what to do. Since the editor's been disruptive with regards to editing before, I'm inclined to request a page pan, but I wouldn't disagree if you thought this measure is too harsh. I simply want the page to be of a good quality, and don't want MusicAngels bullying people on Wikipedia to keep his/her poor edits as permanent additions to articles without even listening to feedback when it is provided.

Cheers,

Neuroxic (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Recently, an IP-hopping editor appears to have started some sort of retribution for my edits outside of the normal edit process as they have done on the Talk page for Birdman (film) which is now page protected. In reference to the Birdman (film) article, I would like to prepare that page for renomination to GA status following the delisting of the article by another editor over a month ago. I am in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor at Birdman (film) that the WP:OR problems need to be fixed in that article. Another editor, User:Going Batty has now started further contributing to the refinement and improvement of my edits in the article. My edits have requested that Neuroxic participate in Talk at the Birdman page and establish consensus before edits. Neuroxic is apparently upset about comments made by the delisting editor at Birdman about his article made about a month ago which delisted his article. Neuroxic is now deleting material from the article which I added in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor and User:Going Batty has now started to further refine some of my edits. Neuroxic, however, keeps deleting without establishing any prior consensus on the Talk page. All he needs is to establish consensus for his edits on the Talk page prior to deleting text on the article. Neuroxic appears also to be asserting that he has somewhere an "FA" version of the Plot section but he has not shown it to anyone. If he has such a section then let him show it to us, and any one of a number of editors would be pleased to add an "FA" Plot section to the article. But he hasn't shown us any of this new version. The article is currently listed as a "B" article with multiple issues requiring attention by the delisting editor. I have enumerated the list of items needing further attention on the Talk page there to at least keep the "B" status for now, and then start preparing the article for renomination to a GA article. I am in agreement and consensus with the delisting editor calling for needed improvements to the article and with the recent edits on the article page made by User:Going Batty there. If User:Neuroxic does not know how to start an RFC for his concerns, I can offer to do this for him since the article deserves the attention called for by the delisting editor. On the IP-hopping issue noted above, if there is a need to supply some of the further IP-hopping addresses mentioned above I can try to supply them as requested. MusicAngels (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Identify subsection for disruptive IP-hopping account for subsequent investigation

Starting two more cents: MusicAngels continues to use bullying and falsehoods despite repeated warnings from admins:

• When someone else reverts an edit by MusicAngels, MusicAngels reverses the revert and insists that BRD requires that consensus be reached before the other person's edit can be allowed. This wrong in so many ways: First, BRD is not a policy that anyone is required to follow. (See the second paragraph of the comment by User:MusikAnimal here: [165]). Next, MusicAngels has BRD backwards, because consensus is recommended for the bold edit, not the reversion. Third, MusicAngels seems to think that their own edits do not need consensus, but other peoples' edits do need consensus. This can't be right.
• On the other hand, MusicAngels says that consensus has been reached for their own edits when this is simply untrue. MusicAngels simply makes it up. For example, see MusicAngels' edit summary here: [166] and similar examples from MusicAngels' contribution history. MusicAngels used the same technique when restoring improper hat notes, even after AN/I told them these hat notes were improper. See the warning by User:Bgwhite here: [167].
• MusicAngels also deletes or objects to IP editors, even after a warming from User:MusikAnimal that WP:IPs_are_human_too.

End of two cents.

86.175.175.128 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Neuroxic's points 1 through 8 do not justify any admin action. Both User:MusicAngels and User:Neuroxic are warned against trying to win by reverting. User:MusicAngels has suggested opening an RfC; I hope he will go ahead with that. The IP-hopper does not seem to have anything useful to contribute and User:Drmies' semi-protection of the talk page appears correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks EdJohnston--that IP, or those IPs (there's probably three or four distinctly different sets), are trolling the hell out of my talk page. They claim to be anonymous academics here to save the world. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:90.50.182.253 reported by User:McSly (Result: Semi)

Page: Compressed sensing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.50.182.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Compressed_sensing&type=revision&diff=678443467&oldid=678412596

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

Comments:
The IP has been adding a link to an unknown company for months now. The diff provided are just for today but a quick look at the article history shows that it has been going on for months. The article was semi-protected in February to stop them and that when their only attempt to communicate occurred by just asking the link to be re-added. I filed a separate report earlier today on the spam blacklist page to have the url blocked (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#lablanche-and-co.com here) since it's the only thing the IP adds. --McSly (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

See a previous complaint from January of 2015 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Continued spam in lede & edit war at Big data. This is a very-long-term problem, and I'd suggest indefinite semiprotection for the article. IPs from the 90.50.* range have been constantly active over the past year during whatever periods the article was open for IP editing. No IP from that range has ever posted on Talk. If somebody from the Lablanche company was willing to discuss matters with us, things could be different. The founder of the company can be seen in this Youtube video and you can form your own opinion on whether this is a serious company. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Indefinite semiprotection. The war continues. Even after the above comment, the same article edit was made by a different 90.50.* IP. If someone from the Lablanche company has advice for how Wikipedia can improve the article, they can use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Ankhsoprah2 (Result: No action)

Page: Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ism schism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179], [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• I have been working on this article's talk page and am waiting until I get feedback from other editors before continuing to edit the article. I made only one edit in the past 24 hours on this article and do not plan on anymore until there is consensus or until a good amount of time has past. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also editwarring on Hassan Rouhani [181] [182], and on Propaganda in Iran [183] [184] --Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weeeeeelllll it's about dinner time here, and I got sidetracked by a couple of other POV/sock/alternate/disruptive accounts in this subject matter. I looked at the Khamenei article and the BLP concerns that Ism schism claims are valid, and there's discussion on the talk page. If I have time later tonight to look more closely, I might end up blocking User:Ankhsoprah2 for tendentious editing and edit warring. Doh. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(My reply is above.) FYI- This editor is strikingly similar to User talk:Ferschais. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all related to User:Ferschais. @@Drmies:, instead of getting pissed, I'm actually happy that you're attempting to fight off the massive Jewish propaganda on Wikipedia, that already plague Twitter (e.g. [185] & [186] etc)--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankhsoprah2, thanks for the reminder. I like to think of myself as an equal-opportunity offender, having the same aversion for propaganda from either side. Ism schism, you may want to start an SPI or two (or a half dozen), not because I think that Ankhsoprah2 is Ferschais, but because there's plenty of socks around, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I approve! @@Ism schism:, first get the Jewish socks. The Shia/Sunni thing should rest until the Jewish socks are wiped off Wikipedia.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait. You just came back from an edit warring block and you're here again? You're walking a very thin line here, and you may well end up with a POV/disruption block. Also, congratulations on your quick learning process here on Wikipedia. I'm closing this: the report is not actionable. Ism schism was reverting obviously POV and likely bad-faith edits, including one by you, Ankhsophrah, and by a couple of IPs. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sara M. Davin reported by User:Vrac (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nova Science Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sara M. Davin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: WikipediaNOVA (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192], [193] (Note that user created new account after notified that WikipediaNOVA ran afoul of COI username policy.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:
Trying to get this COI user to engage on article's talk page without much success, could use a little help. They just keep reverting to keep their edits. Vrac (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:95.238.187.142 reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Foot fetishism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
2. 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
3. 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
4. 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"
5. 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Foot fetishism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of text that is borderline incoherent. This editor also vandalized my user page after I gave them a 3RR warning. ~ Rob^Talk 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours General disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Talk:Denali (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678863935 by Muboshgu (talk) Because you disagree with the editor's objection does not mean it's not good faith. It clearly is. This thread is perfectly legitimate."
2. 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862733 by Calidum (talk) A clear violation of WP:TPO. The original poster's objection is relevant and on-topic. We do not censor editor's good-faith concerns."
3. 02:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862116 by Winkelvi (talk) It is clearly an inappropriate close and your opinion about it's helpfulness is irrelevant. We don't censor editors. Another close will be reported."
4. 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678858178 by Winkelvi (talk)Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection."
5. 00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop Playing the Blame Game and Reach Consensus */ Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Denali. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

n/a

Comments:

User is edit warring to re-open a closed talk page thread. Was invited to comment in one of several related threads, but instead refused. Five reverts in a matter of hours is not good. Calidum 02:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Talk:Denali (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678863935 by Muboshgu (talk) Because you disagree with the editor's objection does not mean it's not good faith. It clearly is. This thread is perfectly legitimate."
2. 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862733 by Calidum (talk) A clear violation of WP:TPO. The original poster's objection is relevant and on-topic. We do not censor editor's good-faith concerns."
3. 02:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678862116 by Winkelvi (talk) It is clearly an inappropriate close and your opinion about it's helpfulness is irrelevant. We don't censor editors. Another close will be reported."
4. 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678858178 by Winkelvi (talk)Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection."
5. 00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop Playing the Blame Game and Reach Consensus */ Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was warned here by Calidum and asked previous to that warning not to edit war in this edit summary.

Strangely, the editor being reported reverted the discussion collapse with this edit summary "Although I may agree with closing this, per WP:TPO: collapse or similar templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion". A neutral editor needs to close it. Thanks." here, and then when it was closed/collapsed just an hour or so later, reverted the close with the following edit summary "Upon review of all relevant talk page discussions, this thread should not be closed. A "Not helpful" opinion does not override a legitimate objection." found here. Apparently, he was for the close before he was against it? What it appears to me is that he just likes reverting certain editors. He has been edit warring for days at Josh Duggar and Talk:Josh Duggar, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per above. Swarm ♠ 02:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Teletoon at Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678788063 by Mdrnpndr (talk) AGAINST WP:USERGENERATED"
2. 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678774752 by Mdrnpndr (talk) not good sources -sweetposer.tk/urbmn, personal website, wiki (AAN's Encyclopedia),"
3. 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "sweetposer.tk & AAN (Wiki like) self published website"
4. 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "improper removal, still an issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:3RR violation; previously warned for edit warring across multiple articles on repeated occasions; appears to have issues with numerous other editors. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also likely WP:HOUNDING, as this user does not seem to have edited this page until very recently when he noticed me doing so. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, you've not proven why you think those sources are considered reliable. Those reversions are, to a degree, justified. The Zap2It source, however, might be acceptable for now. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:ViperSnake151: Excuse me, but a WP:3RR violation is never "justified". (Of course, being a prominent edit warrior yourself, you probably wouldn't know that...) Also, you don't get to decide what is "acceptable" or not; that's up to Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that all of the remaining citations (minus one that I removed myself and that is thus irrelevant despite this user constantly bringing it up) are indeed "acceptable". End of story. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Mdrnpndr has previous been warned about edit warning having been reported before too. He has also attempt to use templates to intimidate me to which i told him to stop doing so for that reason, even another editor that agrees with his position in that argument told him to knock it off. His level of discussion amount to "You are wrong and I am right." He has actually changed his user name. I wonder what reports hide behind that user name.

Diffs 3 & 4 do not go to single version reverted to. The earliest is returning a "Self-published" amongst other tags that were clearly remove without correction. His arguments amount to WP:MYWAY.

For the current report, Mdrnpndr jumps in with an

1. attacking edit summary: "While the other tags are merely questionable, this one is completely inappropriate. Do not restore it." So, I did not and just remove the unusable sources thus no need to return the Self-published tag.
2. 15:09, 31 August 2015 revert with "DO NOT REMOVE GOOD SOURCES"
3. 16:48, 31 August 2015 "Too bad that's merely your own (incorrect) judgement. Such sources are used throughout Wikipedia." Except I cannot find more than 2 other uses of one of the sources. And incorrect sourcing else where cannot justify incorrect sourcing on another.

I don't even have time to get a talk page discussion started, when notice of the 3RR pops up. Spshu (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 03:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Winner1256 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: indef)

Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: User talk:AlexTheWhovian (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: User:AlexTheWhovian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Winner1256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Mr. Robot (TV series):

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]

User talk:AlexTheWhovian:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]
4. [203]
5. [204]
6. [205]

User:AlexTheWhovian

1. [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User in question has now gone on to vandalize other editors reverting his edits. Alex|The|Whovian 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirming also vandalized my user page after i rolled back their edits on another users page. Additionally they attempted to remove this AN3 request twice. -Euphoria42 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

His first edits added information that may or may not be true, but...using fake/misleading references, edit warring, and juvenile vandalism, and even trying to blank this report here, leads me to give him an indef block. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He here admitted to paid editing. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 03:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Manchester United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davefelmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:23, 29 August
2. 13:26, 29 August
3. 16:38, 29 August
4. 18:40, 29 August
5. 06:01, 30 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:47, 29 August

User has been advised to use reliable sources (e.g.[209]).

Comments:

Comment: I warned [210] the user again about using reliable sources. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert after your warning! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And another. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 03:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ferschais reported by User:Ism schism (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Propaganda in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ferschais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212]
2. [213]
3. [214]
4. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216], [217]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by Drmies. Swarm ♠ 03:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Swarm, they placed an unblock request. If you're bored... Drmies (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:Prokaryotes (Result: Page protected)

Page: Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingofaces43 (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. 31 August 2015 diff
2. 31 August 2015 diff
3. 31 August 2015 diff
4. 25 August 2015 diff removes content with POV and argues against consensus (see talk page [219], then goes on to make claims about other editors, SageRad and Jusdafax, that they steer drama)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - instead of responding at the talk page Kingofaces reverted again. Also notified the editor on his talk page per 3RR, here.

Comments:
The user removes reliable sourced content, reverts back to a version which is no longer considered per this RFC here (in particular the words “broad scientific consensus”, have no support), which he ignores. Notice that editor Jytdog, also reverted there, who reported me above. Both editors ignore the RFC decision, and ignore that references do not back up a scientific consensus. Recently editor Jytdog has been reported in those regards for OR, here.

Editor Kingofaces43 previously accused me on my talk page of edit warring, and alleged that I edit with an agenda (Dif) prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If I weren't the editor being accused, I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG considering prokaryotes was reported for edit warring here in a still open case in the very related Genetically modified food article and still hasn't stopped the edit warring behavior. I'll leave that up to someone else. Considering I only had two reverts (the first two edits are one revert at exactly the same time in a series of edits), this is looking pretty frivolous and an attempt to edit war in content without discussion as Prokaryotes was the first person asked (a few times) to come to the talk page instead of reverting. The last diff isn't even in the same article or near the same time period and is entirely unrelated here. Let's look at the actual series of diffs:

• First addition by Prokaryote today. Not related to my edits, but their content was reverted.[220]
• Second set of changes by Prokaryotes:[221][222]
• My reversion (as one revert) of the above.[223] Note that my edit summary said, "Undo edit warring per WP:STATUSQUO. Doesn't appear to fit WP:WEIGHT for this article and will need consensus at this point to re-add." and "No indication this is OR and no consensus for this specific change." respectively.
• Prokaryotes reverts [224] saying: "Per OR and per No Consensus of RFC"
• My last edit (and second revert)[225]: "No consensus at the linked other page for edit. As already mentioned, please gain consensus for the edit at this point per WP:STATUSQUO"

It's looking like Prokaryotes is making a habit of engaging in editor warring in this topic now, and reverting instead of going to the talk page after their content initially didn't get traction. Guidance essays such as WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO haven't seemed to help either. Given that this AN3 posting was made only 10 minutes shortly after finally posting on the article talk page, it doesn't appear they're actually attempting to use the talk page in content disputes, but stick to edit warring instead. It's starting to become very disruptive to any coherent editing, and since this is becoming a problem across pages, I'm not sure if page protection will do much at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You keep ignoring that the version with an alleged scientific consensus has no support, also you revert then start to post at the talk page, doesn't seem very engaging. Additionally you make claims about other pages, without providing difs. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your pot calling the kettle black behavior is subject to scrutiny here in terms of edit warring. You proposed the content, and instead of going to the talk page to work out the details, you kept edit warring it back in. Even after multiple times asking you, you didn't even attempt talk page discussion until after multiple reverts followed by posting this board before I even had a chance to respond. Your incivility through edit warring is highly disruptive when others are trying to be civil to you in kind despite that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes i did 2 reverts, 1 from Jytdog and 1 from you, stop exaggerating. Besides this you keep ignoring that you defend a article version without support and is misleading. Ignoring and mischaracterizing valid arguments by several editors, that's disruptive, not reverting your POV.prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize my actions. You're engaging in drama, then turning around and accusing anyone who tries to civilly respond to it as the problem. There were never "several" editors, only you and I at this specific article. The edit warring is the problem with you before we even get into counting reverts. The diffs clearly show that you did not provide support for your specific edit when the only links you did provide showed ongoing discussion about what to potentially do with the content. There's a huge difference between linking to ongoing discussion about changing something and saying here's an edit we agree on. Finally making a somewhat concrete reference to some sort of editing consensus at a different page[226] after opening this board is indicative of disruptive edit warring behavior that I'm asking the reviewing admin to examine so we can curtain this kind of behavior on your part in the future. On my part, I still plan to ask people to use the talk page if their edit doesn't get initial support as I've always done per our talk page policies and guidelines. I've suggested you do the same, but the lack of that is why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update The original author of the edit now supports my edit, in this dif at teh related discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

These mischaracterizations of the situation are getting extremely frustrating. Prokaryotes was the original author of the edit at this page in question, yet their post implies others were involved. Their sloppy edit warring behavior instead of directly linking to consensus on a specific edit (on another page) led to all this drama. The page content seems to have been settled, but this still leaves the question of what to do about this trend of edit warring behavior by Prokaryotes. It looks like neither of the recent AN3 boards involving them have gotten it through that this kind of editing is not ok from an edit warring standpoint, so I would at least like someone uninvolved to try to guide them on editing and talk page behavior since we have an ongoing trend of this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the diffs provided clearly show three reverts show two reverts (including one set of two contiguous edits) by Kingofaces43 to the same area of the article in less than 24 hours. Prokaryotes also has made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, though one covers a different area of the article. temporary page protection may be in order to stop this ongoing issue.Dialectric (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Based on the comments here, I concur. Page protected for one week. Swarm ♠ 02:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that this is not an ongoing dispute at this page, but part of an issue across pages within a topic. Page protection isn't really needed at this point since the content had been settled before protection as I mentioned above, but hopefully it slows things down if anything happens in the next week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:186.120.130.16 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: User talk:Binksternet (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.120.130.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227] Here I removed a templated warning and replied in prose.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [228] 22:34, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
2. [229] 22:39, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
3. [230] 22:41, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
4. [231] 22:47, August 30. Reverted to restore warning text.
5. [232] 00:08, August 31. Reverted to restore warning text.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning regarding Talk:Humberto Fontova. 3RR warning regarding User talk:Binksternet.

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

Comments:

186.120.130.16 is a relatively new editor from Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. His first few edits talked about biased editors on Wikipedia, and he quickly targeted Redthoreau as an example, saying so here explicitly and then reverting Redthoreau on his own talk page. 186.120.130.16 has linked to a FrontPage Magazine source which says that the Left Conquered Wikipedia. The article names Redthoreau as an example. So 186.120.130.16 is here on a mission, apparently, to make life difficult for Redthoreau and to counteract the liberal bias he feels certain must be here. Whatever warring he has done on my talk page is but small potatoes compared to how he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

More curiously, the article that IP 186 is including to show my "bias" is from 4 years ago, and he alleged I was owning an article that I had not edited in 4 years since then. It's obvious they are not here to edit the Encyclopedia, but to attack what they believe is political bias in the project. I'm doing my best to ignore them, as I don't have the patience since I'm not a full-time editor any longer.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• And again. Adding a fifth revert to the list. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Which fifth revert?

Comments Part. 2:
Hi,

I am a new editor yes. I have been mostly a lurker and passive supported of Wikipedia. I have noticed Binksternet over the Planned Parenthood Talk Page and have to make notice of the following regarding this WP:BITE, WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND:

• Binksternet has been warned several times in the last 12 months for edit warring on his own on several pages, including the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. These actions have been performed by other editors.
• Binksternet and I have been on opposite side of the political spectrum when it comes to proposals over the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. He has been warned also there over blanket deletions of comments instead of contributing by adding or modifying.
• Binksternet has followed my edits, per his oft deleted messages on his own User Page, supposedly to "make sure" I don't make malicious edits. This provokes a very ??? reaction on me.
• I have made several contributions, albeit small, on a host of other articles and my first contribution was definitely not the one Binksternet is trying to portray [233]. This goes against Binksternet's charge of WP:NOTHERE
• I did post on the Humberto Fontova Talk Page about how one RS showed or at least purported to show that Redthoreau has exhibited total WP:OWN behaviour over a specific article. When I checked said articled I noticed that several other editors had made the same accusations but nobody had posted on said Talk Page for close to 4 years. I then posted the following: ""I'd just like to chime in, though very late, that User:Redthoreau has been the subject of ample criticism regarding his ownership of this page and his vehement defense of Che Guevara [234]. This requires the attention of an unrelated Editor so as to make give this page a neutral one. We cannot allow the average Wikipedia reader to fall under User:Redthoreau's power. Remember, WP:TIAC".
• Then User:Redthoreau archived everything AFTER the deletion so as to not leave a trail that you have been seriously criticized both here and on reliable sources. Let's note that nobody had even edited the article recently and the Talk Page had been without any new posts for close to 4 years.
• User:Binksternet reverted my edit and called me a troll. Nothing else. No message, no constructive posts. Afterwards him and me go into an apparent edit war while being the ONLY editors on said Talk Page yet he posted several warnings on my User page that I was/am edit warring there. He also posted a threat of blocking and banning over this same issue and whenever I posted on his User page that we are both part of this "edit war" and that he cannot be an involved editor he just reverted it all, always, and only posted the comment that I am troll.
• I also fail to see how mentioning the geographical location I am in contributes on this. This is clearly an attempt to denigrate the IP poster, me, for being located on a developing country. This is quite troublesome to notice.

In conclusion and in my opinion, I only see, as a fairly new Editor yet long-time lurker of Wikipedia, a very experience yet controversial editor who has decided to push all the weight of his knowledge regarding procedures and definitely non-friendly warnings and threats of blocks and bans. He has been performing the very same actions he has accused me of and just intends to silence a dissenting voice that he himself has unpleasantly dealt with on the Planned Parenthood Talk Page. His very experience there and opposing views against me should have been mentioned and disclosed. The fact that he is an involved editor with me over this "edit war" on Humberto Fontova's Talk Page when nobody else has been posting there shows he is either harassing me or dedicating a non-normal amount of time tracking me and my edits.

Further proof of WP:HARASS might be this [235]: 6 posts from him on my User page just today alone.

PS. I do not know if I have to publish links to where he has constantly called me a troll or his blanket deletions without a single constructive comment. I do not know what would be the next step here. I am just trying to help and my edit history shows i. Any un-involved Administrator that reads through all of our comments here will clearly see that. This is just an experienced editor biting (strongly) a new one and (ab?)using his knowledge to try and possibly silence his comments (as imperfect as they might be) 186.120.130.16 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Users are permitted to delete warnings in their userspace, the IP was edit-warring to keep replacing them. The IP is advised to comment on subjects rather than picking specific users as adversaries. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Dan56 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: The Dark Side of the Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not warn the user because their talk page heading stated "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it ... Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue" I didn't feel a formal warning would do any good at their talk page. So instead, I reminded them in the discussion I opened (pinging them there) that they had performed three reverts and in my last edit summary reverting them and pointing them to the talk page to discuss it instead. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened this discussion at the article's talk page. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
I posted two comments in the discussion I opened, one asking the editor what their issue was with my citation of a reliable source to an unsourced claim and another comment offering a compromise, which was responded to with dismissive replies and the editor reverting the compromise, which was simply the addition of a footnote at the end of an unsourced sentence they felt was self-evident. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, you should've adhered to WP:BRD. You were Bold, PoD Reverted, therefore the onus would've been on you to Discuss. Unfortunately you didn't and you instead either reverted back or accused PoD of ownership issues. I can't see anything grossly wrong with your edit, but it was clearly a bone of contention and it should really have been discussed on the talk page. I would advise you in future to never plaster {{cn}} tags to a featured article; it takes a good editor to source the citation out for themselves but a lazy one to pin tags all over the place in the hope someone else will do it for them. That kind of editing just pisses people off. Rather than being helpful, {{cn}} tags in a featured article are, in my opinion, quite the opposite and are tantamount to vandalism. If you can't find the reference yourself, a featured article, by its very nature, will have watchers who might be able to address such concerns on the talk page; failing that, my advice would be to find the FAC nominator and see if they can help find a source. Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto:, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you reviewed this report haphazardly, and ask you to carefully look at all the diffs, along with the discussion I started, which the other editor dismissed. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, defer to my previous post. I read the diffs, I find it puzzling why you think I might not have done. Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto:, you focused on one of the diffs showing a citation-needed tag I had added after the other editor began an edit war because they felt the citation I had added was "not required". You said "If you can't find the reference yourself" (I had found the reference in my first edit to the article, which was reverted), to "find the FAC nominator and see if they can help find a source" (I had found the source), and that I "either reverted back or accused PoD of ownership issues" instead of discussing it (I did start a discussion), so your comments seemed aloof and out of touch with what actually happened. And I don't know what to make of your response to Chillum. Dan56 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, you can make of what you like about my comment to Chillum, I couldn't really care. The salient facts are, you shouldn't have gone against BRD by adding the citation tag. That's my opinion. This isn't up to me, it's up to whoever actions it, I'm just an outsider looking in. Cassianto^Talk 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto:, "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." (WP:BRD) Parrot of Doom instead reverted my second edit to the article. His first revert simply said "not required"; WP:BRD says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary", while WP:OWNBEHAVIOR cites as an example of ownership, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental". I started a discussion, to which PoD responded scornfully with "There's no point. A single sentence followed by a long list of examples is it's own citation. It does not need some link to a dubious page filled with god-knows-what" and "It isn't a claim that requires verification. I don't know how I could possibly make that easier for you to understand. Should I write it in big, colourful words?"; WP:BRD says to "adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines", and the list he is referring to is made up of only four all-time rankings he claims support the idea that the album has been ranked "frequently" as one of the greatest albums of all-time. WP:BRD says "Be ready to compromise", and I did, bring it up at the talk page and introducing my last edit, which they reverted without consideration for any of the points I had brought up. Soooo... how am I in the wrong here? You don't find PoD breaking 3RR a salient fact? Dan56 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for your flippancy and as such, I'm taking no further part in this. You don't want to accept wrongdoing, which is illustrative of why you're here in the first place. Cassianto^Talk 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

There does seem to be a technical violation of 3RR by Parrot. I am not sure what Cassianto is on about, Dan clearly made an effort to discuss this and was met with a response of "It isn't a claim that requires verification"[241] and a few unhelpful comments to boot. Chillum 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, stop stalking my fucking edits? Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto I am an administrator and I have been frequenting administrative boards for years now, as hard as it may be to believe this conversation is not about you. Once again if you want to complain about me do it on my talk page, you need to stop trying to restart this argument every place we encounter each other, it is not on topic here. Chillum 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said this is about me? Go clean the shit out of your eyes and then re-read this thread. Cassianto^Talk 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of time that has passed and the fact that Parrot seems to have moved on to another article I think this can be closed as no action. Though I welcome the opinion of anyone else, and have no problem if another admin decides otherwise. Chillum 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Warned No block as it is stale, but there was a clear 3rr vio and I have warned Parrot that it would have normally resulted in a block. Swarm ♠ 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Right 9_9 ... could they be anymore pretentious or delusional? Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected for 3 days)

Page

Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678995502 by Cwobeel (talk)No. The whitewash of the article must stop. There is a consensus to include. Do not engage in an edit war."
2. 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678703235 by Winkelvi (talk)Dear Wikilevi: You are not the arbiter of what is "consensus" or what is not "consensus" Please compromise."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ Q?"
2. 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ ce"
3. 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 comments by Perkins */ resp"

Comments:

Not at 3RR, but definitely demonstrating WP:BATTLE, WP:WIN, and edit warring behavior. Reverting in disputed content that is under discussion and consensus being sought. A classic case of WP:IDHT as consensus is clearly and strongly against what he wants. This kind of behavior from this editor has been going on for a long while now at more than one article. Enough is enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Enough is enough. The editors Winkelvi and Cwobeel have been tag teaming the Carly Fiorina article by refusing to allow information that puts Fiorina's firing in context in the article. They are whitewashing the article of the information. Tom Perkins was a main figure in the Fiorina's firing. He has now stated that he believes that the firing was a mistake and was wrong. They have refused to allow the information in the article. It is a BLP violation. I have not violated a 3RR. So this is not the right place for this discussion. However, let me point out that Wikilevi gets upset about factual comments. For example, he is NOT the arbiter of waht is "consensus" or what is not "consensus" but that fact bothers him for some reason. There is no 3RR violation but there is a BLP violation.--ML (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is in the midst of a POV argument between pro and anti Fiorina editors, User:Winkelvi and User:MaverickLittle included. Both sides are at fault, and neither is working towards NPOV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, Ism schism. Your open-ended statement implies I am in an argument at the article talk page with the editor I have reported here. I'm unaware of bring in an argument with him, but, perhaps diffs could shed some light on what you see that I don't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you both are part of a tag team edit war, see; [242] and [243]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. A discussion is occurring. Consensus is being sought (and essentially reached). Reverting out content two times two days apart that is still being discussed is not tag teaming (you might want to look up the definition). You're going to have to do better than that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Consensus has not been reached. There are as many editors that believe the info should stay as there are that think it should be moved the campaign article. It is clear that two editors, Winkelvi and Cwobeel have decided that they see a consensus and then just yell consensus over and over and revert anyone that put the information back in. Surprise the consensus that they see agrees with them! It is a classic gaming technique. But there is no 3RR. This discussion does not belong here, but Winkelvi, the editor that brought this discussion here, even openly admits he brought it here to game the system. He openly admits that there is no 3RR. See his admission here.--ML (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You might want to look up the definitions of WP:GAME and WP:EDITWAR. One isn't even close to what you are claiming, the other doesn't have to equal 3RR to be edit warring. While you are looking up definitions, WP:CONSENSUS is another you might want to become more familiar with. Specifically, in regard to consensus at the article talk page, there are 6 editors against including the content and 2 for it. Seems pretty clear to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Whilst there may be no technical violation of 3RR, there certainly is a content dispute occurring. Please take the next three days to work out consensus as to how this content should be treated. At this point, it does not appear, at least to me, that there is any consensus about the issue, so please work from first principles. Thank you and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Warned)

Page

Shaun King (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NorthBySouthBaranof (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 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) to 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "BLP - the allegations are false."
   2. 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ""Untrue.""
2. 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Questions regarding race */ This was a false claim - King did not misrepresent his identity."
3. 15:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "The claim that King had ever misrepresented his identity was false. If you want to say that the claim about his birth certificate is true, that's a separate issue. This is a BLP matter."
4. 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Well, no, we don't leave long-ago discredited claims about people up in articles once they're discredited, without calling them what they are - false and discredited. Revert per WP:BLP in that the claim is a negative statement about a living person."
5. 07:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "revert as per WP:BLP - the claim is false and has been discredited by the article subject's direct response, and is no longer an issue of debate."
6. 04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "As per WP:BLP, the claim is false; the media frenzy disappeared the moment he publicly and directly refuted the claims, and no reliable source has rejected or disproved King's public statement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[244]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[245] [246]

Comments:

This has been going on for days with this editor (and a few others) at this article. Possibly these edits fall into protecting a WP:BLP? Not sure, though - it looks like unwarranted edit warring to me, as it has been for at least a week. Hoping an administrator can sort it out. Whatever the case, the edit warring in lieu of productive discussion and compromise/consensus at the article talk page is not the solution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang: This is clearly a BLP issue. The tendentious reintroduction of arguments that have been widely discredited, and that are traced to a single unreliable and partisan source which even the NY Daily News dismissed as "repugnant", was wrong and contrary to policy. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Strongjam should be thanked for defending the project against scurrilous and partisan abuse. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• • "Boomerang" for whom, MarkBernstein? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, since I've received no answer from MarkBernstein, I'm forced to assume he meant a boomerang for me (as the filer). Which is a weird suggestion because I haven't edited the article for 8 days. Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive, after all (surely you aren't suggesting I be punished for bringing the edit warring at the article here?). A boomerang block in this case would be preventing what, exactly? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - a boomerang against Winkelvi is an unreasonable suggestion here considering that Winkelvi has not edited the article at all recently, let alone edit it disruptively as NorthBySouthBaranof has. I've clashed with Winkelvi in the past, but he has not been disruptive on that article and this is a legitimate edit war report regarding an ongoing issue. As I mentioned on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page, I do not think repeated reversions to insert "false claim" can be exempted per BLP, when none of the versions ever said or suggested the claims/allegations made were true. [247] This seems to be aggressive editing in violation of 3RR. This has been going on for a long time with this user.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't edit warring. Suggesting an untruth detrimental to the subject is clearly a BLP violation; compare "have you stopped beating you wife?" Scurrilous filings in the hope of securing an advantage in a dispute are contrary to policy, regardless of an editor's activity level. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The number of reverts in addition to the reasons given for the reverts says: Edit warring. And, if anyone is seeking an advantage based on the filing of this report, it wouldn't be me. As stated above, I haven't edited the article for eight days, so where is this advantage and where is my dispute with the editor reported, MarkBernstein? You've made the accusation, so please back it up with evidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never edited the article in question, but I note that NBSB continues to edit war. Also, I would like to see MarkBernstein back up his boomerang accusation, because I'm not seeing it. If he can't, then Mark needs to withdraw the accusation and cease engaging in what could be perceived to be personal harassment of other editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I made no accusation. I proposed a response suitable to the situation. The closing administrator will, I hope, agree that repeating false accusations while trying to minimize their falsity is indeed a violation of BLP, and therefore that they should be promptly reverted by any editor. I have no further comment. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

When boomerang isn't even applicable, how is it a suitable response? Your suggestion of a boomerang in addition to "scurrilous filings in the hope of securing an advantage" most certainly are accusations: you accused me of edit warring as well as trying to game the system in order to win an argument I'm not even involved in. Neither is true, and there is no evidence that even comes close to what you are accusing me of. Cla68 asked you to simply withdraw the accusation. I won't insist on an apology, I won't even ask for one, but at the very least you could admit your accusations are out of order and completely unfounded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the biography of a living person. It was created as a WP:COATRACK to spread unsubstantiated, scurrilous and highly-negative allegations about that living person - that they willfully misrepresented their racial background. Those allegations were first published by a scandalmongering partisan blogger, and were publicized by a similarly-scandalmongering partisan website. While those allegations briefly gained traction in mainstream sources, they have been substantively discredited and refuted by the article subject. The subject's heartfelt and privacy-destroying response was so definitive and credible that all mainstream sources immediately dropped the issue, and even Breitbart backed away from the claim. It is fundamentally unfair and inappropriate to the living person at issue here to fill the lede of his biography with discussion of a discredited partisan hack-job attack without clearly stating that that the claim is untrue and that King did not in any way misrepresent his racial background. What the filer of this report intentionally failed to mention was my multiple attempts to discuss and defend the issue through appropriate channels, including a successful request for page semi-protection against anonymous IP vandalism and the initiation of a talk page discussion which clearly states the BLP issue at stake. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally fail to mention anything. You were edit warring today, I reported it. You've been edit warring at this article for days now, I put that in the report, too. From my viewpoint, that's all that needs to be said, really. If, after looking at the evidence, diffs, etc. as well as your explanation, an administrator feels your repeated edit warring was justified for the reasons you think you were justified in edit warring, then the result of this report will reflect that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: I have seldom if ever seen a more clear cut case than that epitomized in the two comments above. To others, I commend . NorthBySouthBaranof's writing, which is eloquent , concise, and exemplary. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how the BLP exemption can stand up. If reliable sources report on accusations, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia putting in that material. If the subject disputes the allegations and that's also reported by reliable sources, we of course should put that in as well. But it remains a dispute unless reliable sources report that the claims were false. Wikipedia does not get to decide the truth of the claims. The closest the article comes to reporting on the falsity of the claims is the sentence citing The New York Daily News, but in my view it's insufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are categorically false. That said, I believe that NorthBySouthBaranof reverted in good faith. However, the user is Warned that they cannot continue to revert on the article without risking being blocked. I also think that the attacks against Winkelvi are clearly misguided and have zero merit. Finally, there may be some backlash to this closure. Don't necessarily expect that I will respond to it or that any lack of response on my part means anything. I can always hope that users will act against the culture here and actually move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• The vast majority of sources have dismissed the allegations as false and attacks against a persons race. Not to mention that the accusations came from a racist blogger(Vicky Pate) who has been suspended from numerous Twitter accounts for racism and harassing people of color. This is most definitely a BLP exemption, and I implore editors who see this to revert using the same exemption. There is no way the allegations should stand without stating that they are false. They should be removed from the article totally otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• From what I read, none of what you say is in the article, so as far as I'm concerned, it's pure WP:OR. I'm letting your comments stand, but they are clearly disruptive. Encouraging other users to edit-war based on your interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to do. My warning is an administrative action. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to incite others to violate policy. I'm going to bed now. I'll let other administrators deal with the fallout.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Egghead0007 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Egghead0007 indeffed; article protected)

Page

Jacob Bragg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Egghead0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Surely you have better things to do with your day?"
2. 12:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Dear the other editor; Please do something better in your time than make disruptive edits. Before you revert these edits talk to me on my page."
3. 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Fixed the mistakes of the bad wiki editor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"
2. 12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This looks very much like a Sockpuppet of a user banned earlier for similar editing in adding poorly sourced or unsourced information. It may well be the subject himself. I have pointed him towards correct sources needed but to no avail. His username is also a mimic of mine! Egghead06 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war or not, it is clearly an impostor account that needs indef blocking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note I've indefinitely blocked Egghead0007 and semi-protected the Bragg article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Page: Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prokaryotes (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. 00:43, 26 August 2015 diff First edits, adding block of content about glyphosate (which is not GM food per se; was reverted and under discussion on Talk.
2. 05:51, 26 August 2015 diff This series of edits aggressively edited contested content about the "scientific consensus" on GM food which has been under discussion for a long time now
3. 00:14, 27 August 2015 diff This series of edits edit-warred back in content about glyphosate that was still under discussion and made other changes to "consensus statment" section
4. 11:58, 28 August 2015‎ diff This series of edits introduced incorrect content (about broccoli that is not GMO but created by traditional breeding, and health content sourced from non-MEDRS source) and aggressively edited the "consensus statement" which is highly contested, and included this dif that removed significant sources with a very misrepresentative edit summary included additional dif info via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
5. 12:45, 28 August 2015‎ dif restored controversial edits to "consensus statement"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see this section on editor's talk page where i asked them to please slow down. There are many long discussions on talk page trying to address their edits including here on the Glyphosate edits, yet another RfC and this new, strangely titled section: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Readding_of_OR_reference.

Comments:

This is a highly controversial article. We have so far successfully avoided arbcom and to a great extent, drama boards, but Prokaryotes has been editing very aggressively (and often adding incorrect content), without regard for discussion on the Talk page. There were two mega-RfCs recently and as mentioned above, there is sprawling talk page discussion. Prokaryotes aggressive editing is destabilizing the article - especially their edits to the "consensus" statement which was the subject of one of the mega-RfCs. If everyone who cared about this article edited like Prokaryotes we would have been at arbcom ages ago. Please lock the article to force discussion and please consider a short block for Prokaryotes.

As an aside, if you check their contribs, Prokaryotes has gone on a tear since August 26, aggressively editing other, related articles, raising risks about glyphosate and GMOs or "pro" organic, and arguing vehemently on article talk pages. Each bullet is an edit to a different article (not cluttering this with their Talk comments):

• dif
• dif + edit war restoration of edit
• dif
• dif
• dif This one added back content that had been removed and was under discussion via yet another RfC, while the RfC is still underway

I understand that people get passionate about GMOs etc but that is all the more reason for people to exercise restraint, per WP:Controversial articles. This is very clear advocacy editing.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Jytdog's claim i broke 3RR is in error. Yesterday, Jytdog claimed i broke 3RR. When I and another uninvolved editor(SageRad) asked about his 3RR claim and Difs, he did not replied but later retracted his claim. But then another editor(Kingofaces43) came to my talk page and claimed i broke 3RR, in this edit. Then both continued, Kingofaces started to make various claims, that i do advocacy or edit with an agenda. Then another uninvolved editor(Jusdafax) mentioned that Jytdog and Kingofaces are bullying me for my edits. Then Jytdog claimed i do advocacy. When I then asked Jytdog on his talk page to provide Difs for his accusations he made more claims, i would "promoting the goodness of organic or emphasized the risks of GMO stuff", as he put it. It appears to me that Jytdog is acting to much like WP:OWN, and is intimidating other editors who do not agree with his edits. Actually Jytdog did like 6-8 reverts since August 26 at Genetically modified food, some of them questionable and currently discussed on the talk page, examples:

Yeah, this quick draw on the 3RR is kinda messed up. I suggest that we should talk as grownups on the talk page and decide what content belongs in the article through a rational and civil discussion with integrity. SageRad (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog is removing content without consensus, and without discussion
• Here he reverts to what can be described per WP:OR
• Here he removes content which had been part of the article for month. (Discussion)
• Here he removes something, again without discussion.

The various discussions on the talk page at Genetically modified food all involve Jytdog, and most of the time he argues with other editors about his reverts.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. I am not happy to be here but Prokaryotes has not heeded the requests of me and others to slow down.

That said, here are all of my own edits on that page after Prokaryotes started editing. This shows what I mean by the article "destabilizing" - so many strange edits...

* 10:31, 26 August 2015‎ series of diffs didn't fully revert Prokaryotes's change to "scientific consensus" statement but used compromise language that had been worked out on talk after a looooong discussion. Also removed old content made redundant due to new adjacent content added by a third party (sagerad)

* 15:09, 27 August 2015 diff removed inaccurate and redundant content added by yet another editor (drchrissy)

* 01:14, 28 August 2015 diff removed off topic and POV content about patenting of biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals (??) added by yet another editor (praeceptorIP) - nobody on anyside of the debate has objected to reversion of this strange edit to this article. Also removed pre-existing off topic content on use of GM animals to produce drugs which was hook for that strange edit. others on talk page had noted that this was off topic.

* 12:37, 28 August 2015 diff reverted Prokaryotes 2nd change to "consensus" statement

* 13:11, 28 August 2015 diff fixed broken link in source.

there you go.

My primary "ask" here is that the article be locked to drive discussion and stop the recent streak of just weird edits, and secondarily that Prokaryotes be blocked for aggressive editing on this and related controversial articles -again, if everybody edited like Prokaryotes has been doing, we would have been at arbcom ages ago. What ~seems~ to have gotten Prokaryotes all fired up, is that he/she just learned about the IARC re-classifying glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" back in March and just freaked. (see here - it was right after that, the aggressive editing began. We dealt with the IARC reclassification across the suite of articles back in March) In any case, if a reviewing admin thinks I should be also blocked, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's claim my edits are weird or aggressive are in stark contrast to what actually has been done to the page by me (added WHO authority link, removed OR, added study per RS), and how i done it (After his revert went to discuss and RFC, how it should be). Additionally there are several editors who welcomed my edits(1,2, or here in response to Kingsofaces43 editing my addition 3). This self proclaimed steward of Wikipedia has trouble with almost any other editor who tries to improve the page (here, here or here). Jytdog is to attached to the topic of GMO's and Monsanto articles in particular and should be blocked from editing these articles.prokaryotes (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are showing no self restraint, Prokaryotes. I and others keep saying to you that if everyone edited with your aggressiveness we would have been at arbcom ages ago, which you keep not replying to and you just keep on going, as though you are the only editor in WP. I did not call your edits weird - I called some of the other edits weird. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In a related discussion which begun first at GMF article, GregJackP stated, "Jytdog, please focus on the content, not the creator. Stating that PraeceptorIP is abusing WP falls close to a personal attack". And later "You have three different editors saying that it belongs in the article, while you are the sole editor opposing its inclusion. Please stop edit warring the article to your preferred version. If their is an opposing POV, please provide sources, as Praeceptor has done, so the community can properly evaluate this. Second, this is nowhere near COI editing." - -Hence, recent problems with editor Jytdog are very common. Maybe the editor should make a break from Wikipedia and ask himself why he has so many issues with others. Jytdog also writes "I am too angry to write more now." This guy clearly need to make a break, not pick fights with everyone. prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

entirely separate (and yes very frustrating) issue related to the edit about patenting biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals) and one that was ongoing before your disruptions. Nice reference to your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior though. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that an admin looking at this Jytdog-filed case needs to take a wide view. As Prokaryotes notes, this filing is strongly slanted, leaving out anything that reflects poorly on Jytdog. I urge a thorough reading of the article in question's talk page, at Talk:Genetically modified food which includes my warnings to Jytdog to stop his bullying behavior, along with concerns regarding Jytdog expressed by other editors. The short version: Jytdog has de facto claimed ownership of the page, and many other related pages including Pharming (genetics) where he is at this moment involved in an edit war, and Glyphosate and other Monsanto-related articles. My history with Jytdog has been such that I banned him from my personal Talk page several years ago, and I have largely made an effort to avoid him since that time, but his recent edit history calls for a preventative block, as I see it, as he is a self-admittedly angry editor lashing out in a number of areas, and clearly in violation of WP:TEND. Thanks. Jusdafax 05:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've had occasion to wonder about Prokaryotes' self-centred edit behaviour. Here he adds material previously removed as controversial, in the middle of an RfC on this material, long before any sign of consensus or closure. As he was participating in the RfC discussion at the time, he can hardly have been unaware of the due process taking place. In discussion about his unilateral adding of disputed content he gave no indication of regret at ignoring procedure, apparently feeling that his own opinion was reason enough to over-ride a spirited RfC. Perhaps he could count to ten or something before jumping into edit-warrior mode. [Behaviour-related comment retracted] --Pete (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• And I have had occasion to wonder about Jytdog's edit-warring and stalkerish behaviour. Very recently, he sent me an Edit Warring template for edits on Colony collapse disorder which was quickly judged to be inaccurate by another editor.[248] Jytdog, an editor who claims their main involvement is human "health and agriculture" followed me to an article on magnetic senses in animals which they had never edited before and began edit-warring removal of similar material.[249] Indeed, Jytdog is sometimes in such a great rush to edit war that he clearly does not even read the edits he is deleting[250] and is thereby highly disruptive; his competence in this regard might be questioned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Good lord, what a mess. I'm not seeing a technical 3RR here (more than three non-consecutive reverts within 24 hours) but it's clear that the editing environment at that article is fraught. Suggest declining the present case and pursuing action elsewhere. I regret to say that we're almost certainly headed for Arbcom on this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is now stale, and I withdraw it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris we are currently going through a difficult time at the article due to a lack of self-restraint and some HOUNDING going on, but I remain hopeful that we can avoid sucking up community resources and that we can work things out locally. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Since when can an OP suddenly declare that a thread is stale in an obvious attempt to close it? Jytdog, you have raised a serious complaint against another editor. Just because there are edits being posted about your own behaviour that you do not like does not mean that you can try to close this thread. If you really want it closed, strike your comments and apologise to the community for wasting their time.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just as a follow-up - I would not call 4 edits from 4 different editors in the past 24 hrs as "stale". Maybe Jytdog is more used to the flurry of aggressive activity from his "friends" that usually accompanies any criticism of his editing?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• We are now into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Jytdog first threatens to report an editor he clearly wants to intimidate, Prokaryotes, who is editing an article Jytdog has WP:OWN issues with, then Jytdog says he won't report, but then does anyway, and when the 3RR is shown here to be spurious and merely more evidence of Jytdog's ongoing violations of WP:TEND, Jytdog suddenly withdraws the filing as "stale" - his attempt at damage control, I gather. I again urge a reviewing admin to take a thorough look at Jytdog's recent edit history both at the page in question and elsewhere. We have a serious problem with Jytdog, and this time-wasting filing at 3RR is a small part of a much larger problem. Thanks. Jusdafax 00:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• A number of editors here calling for boomerangs, etc. are highly involved in various aspects of content or behavior issues. Prokaryotes has had a myriad of other behavior issues relating to personal attacks such as immediate accusations of bias, being a shill, etc. in addition to the plowing ahead type of editing that was an appropriate conversation for this board. I think page protection could be useful, but how they seemed to show up editing hard from a particular viewpoint seems to suggests advocacy problems not really suited for this board. DrChrissy is topic banned from human health topics yet continues to follow around drama related to these topics. Jusdafax has been an odd case of turning a blind eye to the various tendentious behavior of other editors in the GMO topics and going after only select editors who aren't attempting to villify GMOs/certain companies and who have tried to civilly respond within reason to the original behavior issues. Diffs can be provided on all those if need be, but I'm heading out for the night. There does appear to be a WP:GANG mentality going on here, and it has come to a head as Prokaryotes definitely started stirring things up. In the end though, I'm not sure there's much this board can do about all these underlying problems that led to this posting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You make again accusations, "issues relating to personal attacks such as immediate accusations of bias, being a shill", please provide the difs. prokaryotes (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're already aware of what you said, but comments like these are prime examples. Others such as constantly accusing others of bias are also on the page, but this is not the board to address such problem comments from editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Though always in alignment with Jytdog, KingofAces' opinion can be wildly out of step with the community and their take on PAGs. petrarchan47คุก 03:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• That is kind of you Kingofaces but not needed. DrChrissy and Jusdafax are just making themselves look vindictive. The 3RR filing was valid. And as I noted above, this is stale and no longer a matter for this board. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here is the crux of the matter, Jytdog: if this 3RR filing was so "valid," why has no action been taken? This was a bad faith filing, and you have withdrawn it when you saw the writing on the wall. I repeat again, you are trying to intimidate people with threats and tendentious filings, and your larger history, even that of the past week, shows an ongoing pattern of bullying. I again call on an administrator to take firm action. Jusdafax 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to Jusdafax on my talk page, Jytdog wrote "You are not thinking straight", See Personal attacks: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. This again underlines the long term pattern of intimidation of editors who disagree with Jytdog.prokaryotes (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Pro, as I had not seen his latest insult. So now Jytdog questions my sanity, another blockable offense. The closing admin here, in assessing if a WP:BOOMERANG should be put in play by preventing further disruption and blocking Jytdog should weigh Jytdog's community warning for protracted insults and harassment, only a few months ago. I submit that Jytdog's Wikipedia gaming career be halted here and now. Jusdafax 04:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you seems to understand this board and its function, nor its spirit. This board generally addresses acute disruption as was happening a couple of days ago. The article has settled down so it is very unlikely that any admin is going to take action now. Also, generally action is taken when the edit warring is very clean on one side; this one was messy b/c there was so much going on. Because this had become stale, I withdrew it. I'll also add that neither of you seem to understand the spirit of Wikipedia, which is not vindictive; dragging up stale stuff that has been dealt with, only makes you look bad. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks and accusations are certainly not stale. And none of the issues involving the content disputes with you have been resolved, and this literally includes all disputes where you interfere. Your replies show that you do not understand that actions by you are bad for community relationships and article quality. The right place to write and edit your views is a personal blog, not Wikipedia.prokaryotes (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stale" suddenly seems to be the word of the day. If Jytdog's community warning for WP:Incivility is "stale", then why does KingofAces bring up my Topic Ban - is this "stale" or "fresh"? By the way User:Kingofaces43, you stated "DrChrissy is topic banned from human health topics yet continues to follow around drama related to these topics." - please provide the diffs supporting this accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

They're already at your talk page. [251]. FYI, pings won't work unless they are accompanied by the four tildas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You are misleading the community yet again. The diff you provided shows very recent discussion about my topic ban. It does not show that I continue "...to follow around drama related to these topics." Please provide the diffs showing this, or I can only conclude you are further misleading the community and attempting to discredit me by unnecessarily drawing attention to my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we can the personal attacks by all parties here, please? Other boards are the place for other behaviour discussions. 3RR is a bright line, but edit warring, especially if there is a pattern by an editor or editors over multiple articles stopping short of 3RR can attract sanctions. I'll withdraw a behaviour-related comment I made. If others do the same, it might help an closing admin look at the edit-warring issues raised and decide on a result. Otherwise this is a can of worms that is just going to get worse with every rock flung by the participants, and that's not good for anybody.

Except those sitting back with a tub of hot popcorn, watching the show, maybe. --Pete (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that Pete currently disrupts page edits at Talk:Monsanto legal cases, he will likely be reported here or at ANI in the near future.prokaryotes (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Question to admins: Is it allowable to seek a boomerang Topic Ban for an editor on this page which relates to the editor's behaviours other than (but including) edit warring?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Doc, I'm no admin but my reading of WP:GAME, which is a bedrock behavioral guideline, indicates that Jytdog is in violation in various areas, but particularly the final section, "Abuse of Process," which (to quote):

"... involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith."

Jytdog knew when he brought this here that he was subject to scrutiny, as I and others had already warned him on the article talk page, but his desire to "get" Prokaryotes, since Jytdog is in major and multiple content disputes with Prokaryotes, got the better of him. When 48 hours or so went by and Jytdog didn't get the result he wanted, he tried to pull back, by calling it "stale." Jytdog's abuse of process, intended to "send a message," is blatant and obvious. Any admin can make a ruling on said abuse by Jytdog, and issue a preventative block on this one issue alone. I urge this be done without further delay. Jusdafax 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafex, thank you very much for this. I would like to see confirmation of this from an admin and I agree, this should be done without delay. Please would an admin respond.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. Despite this being an old report, the edit war was still going on as of yesterday. Swarm ♠ 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And Jytdog continues to edit war here[252] and here.[253] DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And with this revert here[254], Jytdog is clearly at 3RR - an admin must take action here, please.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A separate thread has been started below.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:DMagee33 reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Bryan Bullington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMagee33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [256]
2. [257]
3. [258]
4. [259]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261]

Comments: User demonstrating a WP:OWN-style mentality on my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Crossswords reported by User:Ironholds (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Gaijin Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Domain Name Dispute */ see discussion, no real reason given why it should be staying there and he/shes calling me bold which is flaming"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* name dispute is unnessary information */ re"
2. 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* name dispute is unnessary information */ re"

Comments:

Crosswords came to Gaijin Entertainment and WP:BOLDly removed information pertaining to a lawsuit against the company. After multiple users reverted them and disputed their rationales, we opened a talkpage discussion and I invited them to, well, discuss things, pointing them to WP:BRD and warning them that if they continued a slow-burning edit war I would take them to the noticeboards, linking to additional policies that explained why this was problematic.

Crosswords' response has been to...again revert, so I'm here seeking a block. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

multiple users? it was only you and an IP adress:76.103.45.146 from oakland, california who edited otherwise. You didnt give enough reason for your opinion to be right you are just talking about having some higher authority right from the start instead making constructive debate.--Crossswords (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also left a warning that the continuation of the same edit war may result in a longer block being quickly reinstated. Swarm ♠ 05:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)