Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page

Mark Ghuneim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mark Ghuneim. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Comments:

Note these span more than 24 hours, but persistent, protracted EW is clear. The Dissident Aggressor 04:02, 8 May 2015‎

Also note that 79.97.226.247 (talk · contribs) is not me. The Dissident Aggressor 04:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Would welcome other eyes on this page - have documented every edit very transparently on talk page. Wintertanager (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. 79.97.226.247 talk page. I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.Wintertanager (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[As I have already pointed out to you], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at Hugo Barra, Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur), Rick Schwartz, and M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page. For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted. Wintertanager (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a block is in order - it's clear you believe you are entitled to continue removing these tags against consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Against consensus? Um, I think a 'consensus' is the last thing I would use to describe the activity on aforementioned talk pages. Wintertanager (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't recognize that you're an outlier and repeatedly editing against consensus of 3 other editors. (Not to mention you mostly write puff PR pieces about tech execs) You need to be blocked or topic-banned from writing about tech executives. The Dissident Aggressor 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Wintertanager's constant removal of the advert and resume tags from Mark Ghuneim (eight times since April 28) looks like an edit war. It is not up to his sole discretion whether these issues have been resolved. In my opinion he can avoid a block for disruptive editing if he will agree not to remove any more quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I will absolutely agree not to remove any quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May and respect the rules of WP, but I am perplexed by this verdict. Knowing this verdict, Dissident Aggressor is now adding tags to pages I have worked on without any reasoning or specificity, which is all I ever asked for. I hope someone will dig deeper into this. Makes me want to throw in the towel to what I had thought were very positive contributions to WP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He has, since this verdict (5 min ago), tagged the following pages without any explanation in talk. I doubt he knows anything about any of these BLPs, could tell you nothing about the topic of any of these pages. Their only common thread: I've either written or contributed to them.

[Matt Williams]

[Hugo Barra]

Wintertanager (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Voluntary restriction. To avoid a block for disruption Wintertanager has agreed not to remove any more article quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this restriction today, these two guys have gone to town on multiple pages I have written - flagging with all kinds of (what I believe are) unfounded tags - again the only common thread being I wrote them. Saddens me. And helpless to do a thing about it. Wintertanager (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And other folks have joined in discussions on the talk pages supporting these edits. The Dissident Aggressor 12:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Whyedithere reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14] 2 minutes later
3. [15] 3 minutes later
4. [16] 3 minutes later
5. [17] 3 minutes later
6. [18] 7 minutes later

Second Page: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [19]

1. [20]
2. [21] 3 minutes later
3. [22] 9 minutes later
4. [23] 5 minutes later
5. [24] 4 minutes later
6. [25] 3 minutes later
7. [26] 2 minutes later
8. [27] 2 minutes later

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Comments: 6 reverts in less than 20 minutes on CSI: Cyber after 8 reverts in less than 30 minutes on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. No block issued since it's more than 24 hours since the last revert. But the renewal of CSI: Cyber for another season was indeed just a rumor. User:Whyedithere could have saved everyone some trouble by listening to other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GabrielKuka reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pelasgians. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring adding unsourced information against existing sources. Typical sock/nationalist POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring and nationalist POV-pushing. Repeatedly changing 'Greeks' to 'Illyrians'. Making a speech denouncing 'the greeks'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:DVdm (Result: Warned)

Page: Richard Feynman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29], 25-Apr-2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30], 27-Apr-2015, reverted by user DVdm
2. [31], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user Hawkeye7
3. [32], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user WeijiBaikeBianji
4. [33], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user WeijiBaikeBianji
5. [34], 10-May-2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [35], 29-Apr-2015, user Materialscientist
2. [36], 10-May-2015, user DVdm

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [37], 29-Apr-2015 on article talk page, user Debresser
2. User talk:Monochrome Monitor#Definition of who is Jewish in Wikipedia articles

Comments:

I wouldn't really call making the same edit weeks apart "edit warring". Also, the issues I raised weren't resolved at all. He's in the category "Jewish atheists", why not the category "Jewish physicists"? The category "American people of Jewish descent" is inappropriate according to its own definition. "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not adherents of Judaism." He had fully Jewish ancestry, not partial.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If indeed you feel that the issues you raised weren't resolved at all, you should probably set out to resolve them on the talk page. Waiting a few weeks and then coming back to silently revert against (or with absence of) consensus, is i.m.o. edit warring—slow edit warring in this case. - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I understand. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I really didn't want to find you at the drama boards MM. I asked you to leave it be and only go back to the article TP when you had marshalled your arguments. Please can we close this as resolved. MM please take a short break from any Jewish-related material and do some quiet stress free gnoming for a few weeks. I am meant to be your mentor. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for technical violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR at Israel. The pattern suggests this editor often gets into trouble. Did you have no idea that adding the category 'Jewish physicists' could be controversial? We don't identify people as adherents to a religion against their will. I hope this pattern doesn't continue. People seem to be cutting her some slack on grounds of being new. This can't go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Report for Edit Waring Article Govind Kumar Singh by single user

No violation. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admin kindly note there has been continuously removed content references from Article . It is valiance of Wikipedia 3 edits policy . Please do check and take action . Thank --Rainu2006 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC) The edits appear to be fine and there is no violation of 3RR here. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Note also: next time you restore your post on Sitush's page you'll definitely be blocked for edit warring, Rainu2006. See warning on your page. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Excipient0 reported by User:Human3015 (Result:Blocked 3 days)

Page: Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Excipient0 (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. [38][39]
2. [40] reverted Rsrikanth05 Revision as of 22:17, 10 May 2015
3. [41] reverted anti-Vandal bot ClueBot NG Revision as of 22:22, 10 May 2015
4. [42] reverted Human3015 Revision as of 23:33, 10 May 2015
5. [43] reverted Rsrikanth05 Revision as of 23:41, 10 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [44]

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

Comments:

User is involved in edit war with 3 users including a anti-Vandal bot. --Human3015 talk • 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? when did you try and resolve anything? you know this is original research and it will be removed eventually I just had to bring this topic up so others can see this pov garbage and synthesis on the article which users like you support knowingly. Excipient0 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• He again done some reverts on same page, in last 2 hours he got notice of 3RR by 4 users and one notice by Anti-Vandal bot regarding issue related to same page.See here. --Human3015 talk • 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• He has been blocked by admin of Vandalism noticeboard for 3 days. So I take my this report back. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked by MaxSem. only (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:100.11.221.199 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

John Theodore-Edevu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
2. 19:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC) sock Prof1299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ""
3. 19:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC) sock Prof1299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ""
4. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
5. 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 "Undid revision 661727495 by Dr.K. (talk)"
6. 18:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
7. 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 208.54.35.169 ""
8. 16:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) single-edit sock Prof1299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "IPsock"
2. 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Theodore-Edevu. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "COI template"

Comments:

Edit-warring by IPsocks of COI sockmaster. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrEditor88. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The sockmaster has also broken 3RR and the report is shown below:

User:MrEditor88 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result

)

Page

John Theodore-Edevu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MrEditor88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"
2. 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Theodore-Edevu. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "COI template"
2. 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet investigation */ new section"

Comments:

User:Leprof 7272 reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page: Nassim Nicholas Taleb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]
6. [51]
7. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] [55]

Comments:
User:Leprof 7272 has engage in a revert edit war having reverted back edits which appear to remove sources and also make no great improvement to the WP:BLP article for Nassim Taleb. Editor also reverted all caps comment that telling me to leave off from my personal talkpage [56] after I requested that they not comment on my personal page but rather comment on WP:BLP article talkpage. LoveMonkey 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also say I categorically deny the quality claim made by the complaining editor, and simply ask reviewing editors to compare the state of the citations before [57] and after [58] I did my work to complete citations needing or tags, and to consolidate redundant citations. An immediate effect of the reversions that this and the second complainant made of my extensive work was to reintroduce redundant citations and at least one broken URL. It was this that led me to revert, asking them not to throw baby out with bathwater. Moreover, this initial reversion of theirs were accompanied by no Talk (vs long Talk entry by me, made earlier), and only very limited Edit summaries. Clearly, I stumbled into an article where these editors are not used to anyone coming in and doing bold edits, but these two are not in any way blameless, either vis-a-vis AGF or other policies regarding respect and communication.

Note, finally, in terms of quality. The lede, before my arrival, made mention of "systems" in the paragraph about the antifragility and convex tinkering concepts. That reference was vague, so I went to the journal Gene that was cited—later arguments to the contrary, a source very much within my formal doctoral training and expertise—and derived from that article that the systems that were being referred to were "biological, [and] economic", and I added this to the lede. This is a further example of the material that was removed when these two editors did their team reversions. As an educator, I stand by the quality of my citation editing and my text additions. User:Limit-theorem may be a specialist in finance, but sometimes specialists in their areas cannot see that what they write is confusing or ambiguous. I have nothing to say about the all caps-Talk page issue. I was trying to persuade this uninformed reverting editor to stop and read my edit summaries, so as to not revert good work with the ANI-related matter. I could not get through to him, then, or now. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Accused responds in detail:

First, the diffs offered are prejudiced, and fair-minded respondents will have to fully review the article Edit history (beginning 7 May, here [59]), comparing to the Talk page, here [60]. As well, the counts being offered are biased. My work was reverted in block; for sake of clarity, I tried making small sequential edits, explaining how each edit improved things (e.g., again removing citations that were redundant between lede and main body, one at a time). Because I did these one at a time, they are being counted against me as multiple reversions, when in fact, they were simply a strenuous attempt to explain what had been done earlier, why the blanket revert by the two complainants was re-introducing citation issues into the article, how my innocuous edits were separate from the ANI issue—that is, the ideal of small, serial, carefully explained edits is being held as nefarious, while the initial blanket reversion made without Talk or substantive Edit history discussion that began the conflict is being held forth as praiseworthy. Please see through this. The long list provided by User:LoveMonkey obscures what actually happened, and my motives.

Second, note that beginning on 7 May, I made a long series of good faith edits, and documented them extensively with a Talk section, and with detailed Edit summaries for each edit. Please note the difference in length of Edit summaries I gave, before the conflict started, and those given by User:LoveMonkey and User:Limit-theorem in their initial, conflict-beginning reversions.

Third, in re: the complaint instruction: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too.": This complainant knows that the dispute has ended, but is pursuing this anyway, for personal reasons unknown.

Fourth, note that the matter at hand is complex, because the edits involved confound two matters—the ANI matter, see here [61], which is about whether Prof Taleb's personal web pages should be used to populate his WP article with biographical information, and separately, the matter of various copyedits that were made to the article that were unrelated to the ANI issues.

Fifth, I acknowledge my reverts were ill-advised, given the parties involved. They were simply aimed at separating these two issues, allowing the valid copyedits to remain in place, while the ANI matter was discussed.

Sixth, I would note that each time I attempted to return solid content to the article, I accompanied my doing so with pleas to the reverting editor(s) in the Edit summary and/or in personal Talk page notes—asking them to slow down, and consider separating the good from the bad. I would further note that no corresponding care was taken by the two editors reverting (LM, filing this complaint, and User:Limit-theorem). That is, I explained what I was doing and why, and in response, they simply reverted without any attempt to engage at any substantive level. I leave it up to these two editors to explain their relationship, and any concertedness of their actions.

Seventh, even though I ceased editing at the article, these two editors continue editing, obfuscating the ANI discussion, and obfuscating this discussion. That is, rather than engage in discussion, the editor's reverted me part and parcel. Then, on being confronted that their baby-with-bathwater reversion resulted in damage to the article, they quickly engaged in further edits to remove any appearance for a basis for my earlier good faith edits. I challenge this as seriously undermining the the good faith of their response to me and my editing.

Eighth and finally, this matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, insofar as I am absenting myself from the article in question, and from contact with these two editors. I am letting the valid copyedits be discarded. The article again contains unnecessary duplication of citations that I had earlier removed, and possible deadlinks that I had replaced. The article again contains repeat appearances of the personal webpage at issue. That is, rather than the good-faith outcome of allowing the removal of the offending self-published BLP citations until the ANI could rule, this complaining editor, and his compatriot, have had their way—the article continues to contain the personal web page citations, and my separate (essentially innocuous) cleanup copyedits went out with the bathwater.

In conclusion, penalize me if you must, even though I will do no further reversions, or edits, at this article. These two editors take advantage of a system that allows first to revert the upper hand, even if their reversion breaks many other rules, including AGF and expectations of communication via Talk.

Cheers, I am at your mercy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor Leprof 7272 also made edits to other editors talk pages which appear to violate talk page policy [62] LoveMonkey 00:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is off point regarding the claim regarding the edit warring. Please submit a new, separate entry regarding this violation, so that we can focus on the behaviour on both sides, if you think it worth the time of yours and others to do so. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is critical to note that aside from erratic behavior (he went ballistic on my page with uppercase shouting then realized he was angry at the wrong editor) his knowledge of the subject matter related to the page, mostly applied math and math finance, appears to be very limited. Limit-theorem (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As already noted, apology already offered for this, long before the matter escalated. If you are admitting this as the matter motivating this reversion matter, please say you. But one can only apologise so many times.

Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion regarding my credentials. I simply refer those visiting this matter to the last two references you added to the article:

* Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2013). Complements scenario planning by omitting causation. MISSING NAME OF PUBLICATION, VOLUME, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC.

* Mattos-Hall, J. A. (2014). Strategy Under Uncertainty: Open Innovation and Strategic Learning for the Iceland Ocean Cluster (Thesis). MISSING INSTITUTION, URL, ACCESS DATE, ETC.

…and encourage those judging to compare the manner of this, Limit-theorem's most recent sourcing effort, to the citations, before [63] and after [64] I did my recent citation completion and redundancy work. I stand by my scholarly credentials, and find this further criticism—besides being off-point—as simply being laughable, in the face of the clear evidence. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a deeper problem with this editor. The citations were completed (missing parts) 3 hours ago from GS... I fail to understand this confusion. Limit-theorem (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In response I can only say that this is a further example of how you obfuscate matters. Yes, you have fixed these two citations, after I called your attention to them. You did the same earlier in the ANI discussion when I called attention to the fact that your reversions duplicated citations between lede and main body, and introduced a . I am sure any point I will raise here, you will hurriedly rush to the article to make it disappear. This does not alter the fact that your two recent citation additions (disappearing issue though they are, at your hands) are still valid examples, still valid comparisons, to the extensive citation cleanup work I did 7 May onward. The only "deeper problem" here is that you are faced with a faculty colleague who is as credentialed as you, as confident as you, and so not cowed by you (though I will grant that you and LM have decidedly more wikilawyering experience, and more apparent time on your hands). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, User:Leprof 7272 might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if he will take a two-week break from the *topic* of Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This will require him to stop editing the article, and to cease commenting on the article or on the other editors on all pages of Wikipedia, including noticeboards. We shouldn't have to put up with the steady stream of invective and all his charges of bad faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This proposed cessation from editing the article has already taken place. Otherwise, the only place that I am commenting on this matter is here. (Please note date stamps on all entries at Talk pages; those entries were made when I was trying to encourage these two editors to stop the reverting, and separate the ANI issues from the innocuous citation completing and redundancies edits.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I also say, having looked at the careful attention you have paid previous situations, that I look forward to your more full response to the actual points made above. When reverts are initiated without Talk that therefore defy AGF and simple respect, it should be expected that those spending many hours at constructive edits would be put out. Please review the edits that I made, beginning 7 May, and the Talk that was offered in accompaniment, and compare these to the way in which the edits were pro forma rejected without discussion or explanation afterward, by the two complaining editors. As one of your colleagues notes above, regarding another editor that "rarely uses edit summaries," my overheatedness in using all caps in my clearly engaging and persuasion-attempting edit summaries cannot be counted for less than those reverting and offering no or only the most cursory or dismissive Edit summaries. The two complainants are not blameless here.

Again, I ask that my edits and Edit histories be examined, one-by-one, beginning 7 May, alongside Talk entries and dates, before having a look at the response they were given by the complainants, so that an accurate picture of what transpired can be seen. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Per User talk:EdJohnston's comment, I have committed to leaving this article permanently to the two complaining editors, and as well, since there is nothing left to persuade, will leave no further communications at either of their Talk pages. I will also no longer reply to them here, leaving other editors to glean what they can of the real matter by a quick start-to-finish read through here, and then a look at the Edit history at the article, 7 May onward until I finished, and then when these two began their reversions. I accept I over-reacted to the feeling of being reverted without substantive Talk or explanation by these two, but contend, in summary, that these two were not admirable, upstanding WP citizens in the way they responded immediately in their opening reversions, or since (e.g., see LM's opening play of expertise card, saying my "knowledge of... subject matter… appears to be very limited" and his clear pejorative and obfuscatory "[t]here seems to be a deeper problem with this editor", both appearing above).

Hence, I would ask this matter be closed with a warning, on hearing my commitment to leave the article to these two clearly dedicated editors, at least until the ANI decides how to rule on the central issue—the matter of allowing the title subject Taleb's personal web page as a substantive source of self-published CV and other biographical information for Taleb's article. Even then, I don't imagine I will return. The risk is too easily predicted/modeled, and will almost certainly outweigh any predicted benefit. So, I invite Administrative warning, but also ask that the behaviour of the two complainants in their initial reversions, insulting statements, etc., be reviewed, and any further appropriate warning be issued there as well. Last word from me on the matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

Comment (pro Leprof/pro restraint): Uninvolved in the current question, however (full disclosure) an occasional helper toeditor who works on improving Wikipedia with Leprof here. I have read through some of the general concerns on all sides listed here and will say I have precious little time to get deep into all points. If we all step back from this however and consider Wikipedia pillars and the good of the encyclopedia an editor that is using talk pages to further discussion, understanding and wikipedia goals for articles should not be shown to the rest of the project as having done something worthy of a block or the proposed pseudo/selective block.

I think we all do great harm and damage to Wikipedia by showing the world what happens when people of intellect, accomplishment and forceful ideas are shown that Wikipedia is not a place for them, that their time here will be ultimately wasted and abused. It accelerates a brain drain that can prove fatal to this project's ability to sustain and attract future contributors. All editors should be welcomed especially ones that ask tough questions and seek difficult consensus on talk pages while maintaining civility. Leprof 7272 I have always known as a tough but fair and overly civil editor, nothing in this case shows otherwise. No editor is perfect, we all make mistakes but I have wondered increasingly what type of mistakes Wikipedia wants to sanction more, those made with clear intent to improve and lift up the encyclopedia in a collegial way (like Leprof 7272) or those mistakes that have clear intent to tear down, rip apart and create headaches and time wasting for dozens or hundreds of editors (not Leprof 7272, but happy to answer questions about it). Disagreements happen all the time, what kind of editor do we want on Wikipedia the next time those disagreements happen? I have seen Leprof 7272 in those disagreements before and this editor has done tons for wikipedia that even I would not have lifted a finger for, and given my contributions that is saying something for Leprof 7272 that I can't say for more than 3 or 4 other editors. People that can make this encyclopedia a place we are all proud of sometimes read these current threads and think better of it, polices/guidelines need to be followed and applied equally, sometimes we just need to step back and realize what exactly that means. Thank you for the time. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The problem has little to do with biographical sources (I looked and there is rather little cited from Taleb's website that is not found elsewhere). It is the disruptive behavior of the editor and the type of editing. I am myself biased against self-citation except when it is a quote. There are false claims by editor Leprof who removed sources, made claims that the New York Times and the Financial Times were not good sources and created incoherent verbose narratives. It is very bad when people accuse others of bad faith and pour random abuse on editor's pages and, in two years of editing, the first time I experience that here. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I first edited this article around two years ago and it's on my watch list, although I've made less than ten edits since then. First off, there are not 7 reverts. It's at most 4 by my count. Second, neither Limit Theorem nor LoveMonkey have clean hands in this matter. They've both shown some ownership behavior in the past and undone well-explained reverts without resolution of the policy-based issues on talk. I'm not familiar with the details of the current interaction, but I do believe that from what I have seen of LeProf's editing on this article, he is trying to correct undue and primary-sourced content which unencyclopedically promotes or misrepresents the subject. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifco is under topic ban. [65] So the same set of rules apply to Specifico as I can contest and possibly edit on articles I have agreed not to, however none of my actions have triggered ARBCOM sanctions where as Specifico editing has. LoveMonkey 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Per his comment above, User:Leprof 7272 is accepting a two-week self-imposed topic ban from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This requires him to stop editing the article, and to cease commenting on the article or on the other editors on all pages of Wikipedia, including noticeboards. He is accepting this in lieu of a block for the 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr.Ted Rothstein DDS PhD reported by User:Agtx (Result: Blocked)

Page

Compulsive overeating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr.Ted Rothstein DDS PhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
2. 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
3. 22:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
4. 22:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
5. 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "A new citation in Further reading: Ref article in Medium.com: Dr.Ted Rothstein dentist/orthodonist encourges dental professionals to offer their services to control compulsive overeating as part of a "healthcare" team."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "3rr warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Dental sources */ new section"

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: User agreed to remove the POV tag)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]

Comments:

Getoverpops just returned from a 48 hour block for a 3RR violation. Twice since he returned he has made the exact same reverts that led to the block. The blocking editor stated the following to justify the last block ([68]:

Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks.

He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited.

It seems like further action is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said the first time the neutrality dispute went stale because I was unable to post for a while. I have since brought it back because I'm back. Until the moderators say the case should be closed why should the dispute tag be removed from the article. I've also asked for further information on your previous review because I see that you were posting information on your talk page rather than on the public page where I could make my side of the story hear. Isn't the better plan to either get a neutrality ruling or let the process work it's way out?Getoverpops (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion Getoverpops should be blocked for continuing the war. But we could close with no action if he will promise to refrain from restoring the POV tag at Southern strategy between now and June 30. EdJohnston (talk)

I know I'm not in a position to ask but could I ask to amend the terms to "will not add it back without reviewing with you first"? As I asked before, I think NS is trying hard to avoid discussing the issues with the article. Also, can I ask why an active neutrality discussion should not have the tag? I thought that was the standard protocol?Getoverpops (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. I disagree that I am engaged in an edit war as I have made very few changed to the article and most of those changes have stood. Can you explain why it is incorrect to have the neutrality tag given that a discussion is on going? Doesn't having the discussion make the tag correct? Getoverpops (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Under your theory, any single editor would be able to keep a POV tag on an article forever regardless of others' views. All that would be needed is for that person to keep posting regularly to the dispute thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving future discussion to your talk page. Getoverpops (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Getoverpops has removed the POV tag to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:I don't believe this is sufficient. Getoverpops removed the POV tag but has now taken to inserting his POV into the article without garnering consensus from the NPOV Noticeboard or finishing dispute resolution. [69] You can also see here that he is changing the lead to suit his POV by asserting a false debate. [70] So instead of edit warring over a tag, he's now just going to bypass the tag/dispute resolution process and insert his POV directly into the article. I believe a topic ban is appropriate since he just attempted to "move the goalposts".Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This has now been resolved per a discussion elsewhere. Getoverpops has agreed to a voluntary topic ban from the Southern strategy on all pages of Wikipedia until June 11. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Travelbybus reported by User:117.53.77.84 (Result:2 weeks for both)

Page: Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Travelbybus (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. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He has been no responding the warnings.

Comments:

• Totally uninvolved user here, but I just took a quick look at this, and good grief. 3RR hasn't been violated recently, and the things the IP cite here are not from the same article, but this edit war dates back to the 30th of April, and I should note that Travelbybus was blocked previously for edit warring across multiple articles (1st May, 48 hour block). Since then, I count three reverts on the Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War ([76], [77], [78]) article, three on the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) ([79], [80], [81]), and potentially others across other articles. Given the previous block and the fact that they only seem to edit-war on political and war articles, my personal recommendation would be an indefinite block, until such time that Travelbybus learns not to edit war. The IP is clearly not blameless either, but they were, at least, reverting to the status quo, and they did at least leave talk page messages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Travelbybus might need an indefinite eventually, but I'm just giving the 2 weeks for now as the account's second block. only (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN reported by User:Gdteda (Result: Filer blocked as a sock)

Page: Shiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NeilN (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. [NeilN]
2. [82]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

I assume this is about me. The OP is a sock of an indef blocked editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adityashashtri --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OP has been blocked. [83] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: The filer has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Salvidrim!. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lukaneville2012 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

Page

Connor McDavid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lukaneville2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) to 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879240 by NeilN (talk)"
   2. 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879490 by NeilN (talk)"
4. 18:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879815 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661880267 by NeilN (talk) McDavid is going to be drafted by edmonton"
6. 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661880745 by DVdm (talk) connor macdavid will be drafted by edmontomn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
2. 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
3. 18:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Connor McDavid. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

BLP exemption for me. The 2015 NHL Entry Draft is on June 26-27th NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor is willing to stop. [84] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked before seeing this report. If they post an unblock request agreeing to cease edit warring and acknowledging they understand why they were being reverted I am willing to consider unblocking. Tiptoety ^talk 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Onasloga reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kuwaiti general election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onasloga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85] (same revert twice in April)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86] Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table
2. [87] Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table again
3. [88] Belatedly realises that the source he is using refers to the new seat totals following by-elections in 2014, but still reinserts the text to the results section (now meaning the text in the results section talks about seat totals as a result of the 2014 by-election rather than the 2013 elections, and now contradicts the results table)
4. [89] Reverts the misleading text back into the article

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kuwaiti general election, 2013 (not a diff, but you can see the various attempts I have made to explain why his edits are wrong)

Comments: I am now up to three reverts on the article, so could someone else remove the incorrect text that has been re-added? Thanks, Number 57 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. The article is called Kuwaiti general election, 2013. It is unclear why 2014 results need to be included in the totals. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result:6 month block)

Page

Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661901367 by Chasewc91 (talk) It is reported, speculation does not belong, I repeat. Unless Taylor confirms it herself."
2. 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Writing */ I understand that reliable sources post it, but speculation does not belong."
3. 16:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Development and release */ no source for this. Yes, I know it's true, but even stuff that is true needs a citation."
4. 15:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "unsourced genre."
5. 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661841933 by 90.205.252.38 (talk)"
6. 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "still, no source"
7. 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661787192 by 2602:304:1066:BC59:C9B0:F213:D91F:1D04 (talk) unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Katy Perry addition */ new section"

Comments:

User was warned and immediately continued his revert spree across various articles including All That (Carly Rae Jepsen song) and Drake Bell. Continues to fail to understand the exemptions of 3RR as seen on the user's talk page. User has been blocked multiple times in the last few months for edit warring and at one point was under a 1RR restriction. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: User was notified of this discussion, but blanked the notification. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content, what am I supposed to do? Just leave it there? And I'm sorry if I don't have the right piece of mind and under severe stress and try to continue editing anyway. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a problem, someone else will surely remove it. 3RR exempts the reversion of BLP violations (and other legal policy violations), contributions by banned users, and vandalism. That's it. Unsourced content, unless it is controversial information about a living person, is not included. How have you been blocked multiple times for this and you still don't understand that? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, please use the {{cn}} tag for things that aren't sourced but not libelous, vandalism etc. You can also check for yourself; stuff like this is easily sourced. Calidum T|C 22:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph's month long block for edit warring expired a week ago and he's resumed the same behavior of revert, revert, revert without heeding what other editors are saying. I advised him to edit cautiously [91] but it seems that went unheeded. He has time to revert, but not enough time to participate on talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to Joseph's editing prior to this week, because as far as I know haven't interacted with him before this week, but I have noticed recently Joseph was warned on his talk page [92] for what seemed to be completely reasonable revert [93], where another user had been warring against multiple users to change the opening sentence of Meghan Trainor discography, despite not having consensus to change this longstanding article content. [94]. This was one of the Trainor articles subject to recent disruption, and I get the feeling some of the dispute might have something to do with recent issues brought to WP:AN [95], [96]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to that discussion, please stop following me around everywhere and making bad-faith accusations against me. Regardless of the intentions, the examples provided in the report are a serious and blatant 3RR violation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I am not following you around. Seems ironic that you'd say that considering mutliple users have described your interaction with certain editors as houding. I've had wp:an3 on my watchlist for a long time, and I added the Meghan Trainor articles to my watchlist after the flurry of ANI's, RfC's etc. From my limited observation of Joseph's editing and the warnings he has received, this dispute appears related to the general Meghan Trainor disruption which is why I referred to wp:an discussion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"A certain editor" ≠ "certain editors". And since when are Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song) and Drake Bell Trainor-related articles? Get a grip, and stay on topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Chase, and not because of anything other than what I'm seeing here from you at this noticeboard, BoboMeowCat. You seriously need to stop with the bad faith by bringing up other shit and trying to insert it into discussions as if it's relevant to the discussion at hand. In no way is what you've carted over here from previous discussions related to anything in this one. Please, do us all a favor: drop the stick and -- as Chase said -- get a grip. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And might I note that there was 3 reverts on Drake Bell by an editor as well, so there should be something on NeilN as well. And I'm sorry if I don't have all that much time to look for sources or do all that much right now. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

NeilN has only made one revert to that article in the past 24 hours. You are far more likely to avoid a block if you accept and acknowledge that what you did was wrong instead of making excuses or trying to shift the blame onto others. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have time to look for sources for material you want to add then don't add the material? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet I had sources. There is a section on Philanthropy in the article. I don't have much time to add sources, most recently, actually the past couple of minutes. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And again, that "source" is a press release. If you don't have time to participate in the discussion, leave the contentious material out, and come back when you do have time. Just reverting and refusing to participate by saying "there's no time limit" is not really on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, you need to read WP:PRIMARY and see what constitutes acceptable use of a primary source. Please especially look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When a talk page discussion is opened, the article is reverted to the version before the revisions started, that's all I was doing there. Oh, and I like how you both reverted my edits on the certain pages. Tag-team, anyone? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the label was introduced by a now-blocked sock at the beginning of May and then you reintroduced it. You've been editing for the past couple days. Why have you not posted anything on the talk page to justify your last two reverts? Do you take "no time limit" to mean you can ignore the talk page forever? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was ignoring it. I haven't made that many major edits, and that's easier than a giant talk page discussion like this one. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Only two of the diffs appear to be clear reverts, the rest appear to involve removal of unsourced content which I'm not sure we want to discourage.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unsourced content, except for BLP violations, is not included at WP:3RRNO. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship has failed. 1RR has failed. 5 blocks have failed. Since Joseph's last block was for one month and he continues to argue instead of learning from his mistakes, I would suggest a block of at least 3-4 months as a final warning. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Might I note that other editors seem to always get leeway? See #3 on this page for an example. And it says blocks are not supposed to punishment? From stuff like this, it certainly seems so. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hold yourself accountable for your own actions and quit comparing your circumstances with others'. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but they are supposed to be preventative of disruption to the encyclopedia. Seeing as you have been blocked 5 times previously for edit warring and are here again for an obscene 3RR violation, continuing to argue and refusing to acknowledge the problems with your edits, and the fact that you continued to revert on other articles after being warned against edit warring: you're clearly going to continue disrupting the project if you're not blocked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Are you going to do anything differently in the future? Your past history is troublesome so it's kind of hard to see you changing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Whether Joseph is blocked or not, I would like to know myself what he would do differently in the future here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd offer to assist mentoring after any block, if it was okay with SNUGGUMS. Suppose we block for another month, maybe two months max. More would be punitive, IMHO. Let Joseph get his head together. He's very young. Then keep the 1RR in effect for say 6 months. And I work with him. If Joseph actually wants to learn something, I can help. He seems potentially a valuable contributor. Alternatively, he admits right now he's been hot headed and promises to abide by the existing 1RR AND work daily with his mentor(s). Possibly even offer to work in completely different pagespace. Definitely stay out of this pagespace. He would have to say it right now and prove it by keeping to it. Would that satisfy User:Chasewc91? BusterD (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Be my guest, BusterD. While I'm no longer Joseph's mentor, I'd still be willing to help him and give advice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• My only problem is that Joseph has done mentorship and 1RR in the past and failed to change his behavior; I'm not sure what going through these rounds again would do. Age is no excuse since we have a number of young editors who mostly steer clear of edit warring and other disruptive behavior. Ultimately, an admin who reviews this gets the call on what to do, but I would very much prefer that regardless of the length and/or conditions of the block, that this serve as the last warning for Joseph before he's blocked indefinitely. He's had many chances and he needs to take this one seriously; hopefully knowing that this could be his last block before he's out of here for good will encourage better behavior. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want this user blocked indefinitely? Chase, this seems like similar overkill to recent wp:an. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he should be indef blocked now, but he's been blocked 5 times for the same behavior and if he continues to edit war after a 6th block, there's really no need in keeping someone around who's just going to resort to the same disruptive behavior. Blocks increase in length and if the user doesn't learn then they're blocked for good. It's how Wikipedia works. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• That seems sensible to me. While it's not up to me about the length of any block or whether this would be the final warning, I'd be willing to work with Joseph if he'd be willing to come clean in this thread. No excuses, no comparisons to how others are dealt with. Joseph, do you want to be a wikipedian, or is this just something else you're getting tired of doing. You've got a number of accomplished editors willing to support you if you're willing to see this in a fresh way. BusterD (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking over the current report and what I can gather from the history, a 1RR restriction for Joseph seems like a workable option. I'm not seeing a solid case for longterm block. This current report does appear to be a 3RR violation, but mostly removal of unsourced content. I'm not sure how it would benefit WP to block Joseph long term, especially given multiple editors expressing willingness to help this young editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Chase is correct: nothing, so far, has worked to keep this editor from edit warring and editing disruptively. I'm far from perfect, have made plenty of my own mistakes in Wikipedia, and have done and said some stupid things. But really... Coming off a month-long block just days ago and edit warring in the extreme. Again? Ridiculous. I nearly reported JP a couple of days ago for edit warring at the Meghan Trainor discography article here [97] and here [98] not because it was 3RR but because the edit warring behavior had obviously begun again - especially with the uncooperative and smart ass edit summary "Why am I always the one having to?" in reply to my suggestion he go to the talk page after a discussion had been started. He is disruptive and doesn't care he's disruptive. He edit wars because he thinks he's right, he doesn't want to discuss on article talk pages, he completely ignores WP:BRD and doesn't even make an effort to remember BRD. I am not interested in seeing him punished or sanctioned or indeffed. I'm just interested in seeing -- at the very least -- some maturity gained after he comes off a block. It has NEVER happened yet. Not once. A seriously longer block with an agreement to being mentored and 1RR when he returns from the block is, in my opinion, the only thing that's going to make an impression on him. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, those are actually diffs from an ongoing edit war that you started on Meghan Trainor discography, where you reverted multiple users in your attempt to change the opening sentence of the lead. You were repeatedly reverting longstanding article content, absent consensus to make those changes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha, telling me for edit warring when you did the exact same thing, but got off scot-free. I'd agree to what the other BusterD suggested, but Winkelvi just aggravates me to no end, has been there since my first block when I was a new editor and didn't know much better, and reported me about three more times, getting blocked every time. All other editors seemed understanding to me, except for him. Is there anyway I can prevent him from being anywhere near me? He is an obvious Hound. I don't know, what's that thing called, an IBan? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BusterD's condition was I'd be willing to work with Joseph if he'd be willing to come clean in this thread. No excuses, no comparisons to how others are dealt with. Complaining about Winkelvi's behavior in a thread about your own isn't following that condition. If you want to agree to BusterD's suggestion, you need to demonstrate that you know what the problem with your edits is. Don't just say "oh I know, I agree" or say whatever will prevent you from a harsher sanction. As a non-admin, I can't force you to do this, but I would highly suggest that you thoroughly look over WP:EW and WP:BRD and explain in at least a few paragraphs what edit warring is, why it is wrong, how much you can revert in 24 hours, what is exempt from 3RR, and how you'll avoid edit warring in the future. It would show editors that you take this seriously and are willing to change. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I still want an admission of responsibility. There's that other thing where responsible human beings decide to honor each others' space and voluntarily not frack with each other. I know I can trust Winkelvi with such an agreement. Nobody wants more anger or resentment. Not even the editors who disagree with you Joseph. All we want is a civil workspace where we each can get things done without too much heat. Even you want that. All we have to do is back the frack off, get some sleep and meet tomorrow afternoon to get started. If the admin deciding this chooses to put a block on you, well, even you thought you had one coming. What if, instead, we don't block anybody. We end up thanking each other for being humans and occasionally getting hot, and promise to try to do better tomorrow. It all starts with what Joseph is willing to do. If we find he and I can't get along, well we know we'll see each other here soon. Let's just this one time, give Joseph a break. Tonight. He closes the browser and gives himself an 18 hour wikbreak, as a show of good faith. BusterD (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to an 18 hour wikibreak, BusterD. What would that be, about 12:30 tomorrow? Cool, I'd be at school anyway unless I'm sick still like today. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You do understand, Joseph, that this 18-hour break is not necessarily in lieu of any blocks or other agreements regarding 1RR and mentoring when you return? An administrator reviewing this still may block you. This is just something Buster is suggesting as a cooling-off period so you can get some perspective and come back to take responsibility and stop blaming others for your bad choices. You DO understand this, right? Because, with you counting the minutes to when you would return after 18 hours expires, it doesn't seem to me that you really do understand what's going on, what's being suggested, and why it's being suggested. What you need to be concentrating on is not when you return but what you should and shouldn't do when you return. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent start. Let's accept Joseph's willingness to impose a break on himself as a step in the right direction. Tomorrow Joseph and I will draft a statement for the top of his userpage which will meet the requirements users (including myself) have offered here. If by this timestamp tomorrow night we haven't written something accommodating users' legitimate concerns, even I will endorse this block request. Until then, let's all sleep on it. I'd appreciate users voluntarily avoiding interaction with the editor, instead communicating with me on my talk. That way less harsh exchanges. Joseph will not edit pagespace using his account or any other (or ip address) until he and I set up some ground rules for the mentoring. Can everyone live with that? Can Joseph accept this?BusterD (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually can accept it. We will see how this goes when it gets taken care of, then go from there. The only pages that I will edit is my talk and user page if I must (if I get messages or something) -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Good way forward. I'd recommend any reviewing admin hold off action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What Wikelvi said above. Stay off Wikipedia until after school, then send me a message on my talk so we can set up a draftspace and a time to meet. Until then, do your homework and I'll do mine. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will. But just in case an admin does decide to take action anyway, something to note. Let me say one more thing. Per policy on unsourced content, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Just something to note cause it is policy. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A very ungentlemanly way of saying goodnight. Go to bed Joseph, we're watching your contribs. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see the grounds for optimism here. By the time somebody has been blocked five times they have probably become a net drain on the encyclopedia. Too much of their time is just wasted in struggles with others. The last block only expired on May 4th, yet here we are again. Though User:BusterD has sensible ideas about mentoring they seem unlikely to work. The editor's talk page shows little has changed since people first tried to assist him in late 2014. He was placed under mentorship on April 1 but it failed almost immediately. If mentorship is adopted this time around, who wants to take bets on how fast he will be back here at AN3? I favor an indefinite block. Joseph has revealed his age on his user page. He might consider returning in a couple of years. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, and the continued arguing about "unsourced content" being a 3RR exemption (it isn't) isn't promising. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• I was ready to say to BusterD that I would be willing to give him one more chance...and then I was stopped in my comments with edit conflicts. Which, as it turns out, is a good thing because of this "Let me say one more thing..." comment from JP about policy. He's still not dropping the stick. I'm not a proponent of indef blocks by-and-large and am big on giving editors more than one chance because the internet is a weird place where people do stupid stuff they wouldn't do IRL, but -- it seems he still just doesn't get it. I'm going to come down on the side of agreeing with EdJohnston on this. Joseph can give it another try in a year or so. He's not ready or willing to make it work at this time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still willing. There's no doubt it was an unwise thing to say. It demonstrates the user doesn't understand that we're required to resolve our differences by measuring consensus. Often both sides have legitimate reasons to claim they are right per policy. I've participated in two lengthy formal processes lately and it's unlikely my position will prevail in either close. That said, I have benefited immeasurably by making new friends and gaining respect for my "opponents" in each process. Had to screw up a lot around here to gain that insight. BusterD (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 months My rationale is at his talk page; I just can't foresee someone who's been blocked now 6 times since January with the most recent being a month long block that expired a week ago being a net gain in the near future. only (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I can certainly understand only's rationale for a lengthy block considering block history, but given the young editor here had BusterD willing to work with him, it also seems important to note that the initial report above is inaccurate. It might not matter now, because Joseph Prasad has indicated he doesn't plan on returning after block or requesting block be reviewed/shortened, but it seems relevant that this statement from the OP isn't true: "User was warned and immediately continued his revert spree across various articles including All That (Carly Rae Jepsen song) and Drake Bell", but the article history shows Joseph did not edit the Carly Rae Jepsen song after being warned. He did make a revert on Drake Bell after being warned regarding the other page, but I think it's misleading to admins reviewing this report to describe this as a "revert spree" after warning. It also isn't clear in the OP, that after Joseph was warned by Chase to stop edit warring at the Taylor Swift song, Joseph stopped editing that page. This is just my personal opinion, but in the future, I think it might be helpful if Chase tries requesting that the editor who violated 3RR self-revert, and then file at AN3 if that request is refused. This is my standard policy with respect to 3RR, especially if all reverts were not clear undos and include things like removing unsourced content with the offending editor perhaps not realizing they violated 3RR until too late. In my opinion, there is too much drama swirling around the editor who filed this report and various other young editors who work on Meghan Trainor articles of which Joseph Prasad was one. [99],[100]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Listen, you REALLY need to drop the stick and stop spreading the lie that I have a vendetta against young editors (I am only 20 myself) or contributors to Meghan Trainor articles, because it isn't true and you just look desperate for me to look like the "bad guy". You're the one trying to stir up all the drama. Fact of the matter is, regardless of whether or not Joseph stopped at the Taylor Swift article, he could have been blocked for that alone with or without a report. But coupled with restarting an ongoing edit war at another article immediately after being warned and he most definitely deserved the block. Instead of trying to create drama through your repeated bad-faith assumptions which don't even come close to being the truth, you just stop defending people who don't need to be defended for their bad behavior? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, everything I've written here and at wp:an is verifiable and backed up by time stamps, edit histories, and diffs. My concern here isn't making you look like the "bad guy" but rather the ongoing battlefield in the topic area.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.122.11.68 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

Page: Binding energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.11.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]
5. [106], after 3RR warning on user talk. More of same.
6. [107] and again
7. [108]
8. [109]
9. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:
IP is repeatedly adding nonsense, based on original research of (questionable) source. Discussion at Talk:Binding_energy#Synergy with alarming statements like "Desist. I am reverting your changes (again) as unreferenced."

Note - Additional similar re-reverts with same content in articles Synergy ([113], [114]) and Minimum total potential energy principle ([115], [116]). - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 2 weeks )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "/* NATO war crimes */"
2. 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Third report. [117] NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that this IP has been edit warring on a number of other articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for consistent POV edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mogism reported by User:3gg5amp1e (Result: )

Page

CVIC SE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662039847 by 3gg5amp1e (talk) Don't be ridiculous. What part of the speedy criteria are you suggesting this meets?"
2. 19:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "This is not a BLP, it makes a clear association of notability, and is fully referenced – inline referencing isn't and never has been compulsory on Wikipedia. Quit being disruptive."
3. 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "Knock it off. You don't get to make up a bunch of policies and demand an article complies with them; that a company article mentions the chief executive doesn't make it a BLP. Let the AFD run its course."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "/* A barnstar for you! */ new WikiLove message"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I would like to have an uninvolved editor or administrator look into this further to prevent a 3RR situation. I believe that those tags apply and Mogism seems to think they own the page. Thank you. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Two removals of a bunch of misplaced tags (and the removal of a ludicrous misuse of speedy tags, since there's no conceivable way something including the sentence "it became a major software industry in China and later started to gain partnerships with international companies such as IBM, Intel, Elgato and Paradigm" meets WP:CSD#A7) is not a edit-war. You've already taken this to AFD – if it's deleted, whether it's tagged or not is moot, and if it's not deleted then it's a fairly good sign your concept of "notability" is flawed. Forum-shopping here because you don't like what you're being told elsewhere is a waste of my time, your time and the time of whoever has to close this. Mogism (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User "Joseph2302" keeps nominating my edits for deletion with unfounded reasons - Seems he's contracted to do so

[[User:]] reported by User:Hilumeoka2000 (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]
4. [122]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:
User:Joseph2302 attacked all by created pages by placing Speedy deletion tag on them citing "undisclosed paid creator" as his main reason. But the Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) has not been approved. User: Safiel called Joseph2302 to order and removed the speedy deletion tag placed on one of the pages Bobby Kumar Kalotee. User:Joseph2302 still reverted the page and all others to speedy deletion tag. Now, he has again reverted some of the pages using AFD deletion tag.

Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)