Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.107.171.90 (talk) at 11:45, 21 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{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:Markus W. Karner reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Rohingya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Markus W. Karner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "I checked the sources (only those which are online). Derek Tonkin, Jacques Leider are not Burmese!"
    2. 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667352466 by 58.106.252.62 (talk) please stop this madness over the economist sensationalist article. I work there and I can tell you the allegations are nonsense"
    3. 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667333507 by 58.106.252.62 (talk)"
    4. 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667279882 by 58.106.230.133 (talk) this sensationalist view is not found in any other page. Please don't push the views to extreme"
    5. 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "revert promotion of one source above others"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • User was warned this morning and has continued to edit war. Ogress smash! 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another user, User:User:Za-ari-masen registered an account at that page and their edits from IP+new account would also count as a 3RR/edit war issue, but I don't know how to report that kind of thing! Ogress smash! 00:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to add that I haven't added one single sentence to that article. This article has received one-sided edits from both sides and I am just reverting. The last revert has no association with previous reverts. I have worked there and understand that such unbalanced narratives inflame the problem. I am prepared to discuss on talk-page but these users will refuse to discuss and just push whatever they want with new accounts. Markus W. Karner (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Markus W. Karner removes well sourced content using very strange excuses (e.g. that he is in Myanmar and hence somehow has more authority or grasp of facts on the ground than the well regarded authors that are cited. Also, his claim that he is "prepared to discuss on talk-page but these users will refuse to discuss" is a blatant lie. A quick check of his talk page shows that he repeatedly ignored requests to discuss or specifically explain the reasons for his bulk removal of content. I believe he should be blocked to prevent his continual mass content removal which he defends in a very personal, nonsensical manner.58.106.254.122 (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Markus W. Karner, even a good-faith edit war is an edit war. Both of you are edit warring, which is why I brought this case here. The way to fix (alleged) vandalism isn't to edit war. You were warned once already 12 hours before I brought this case and you ignored it and kept on keepin' on instead of looking for another solution, like say seeking Admin assistance in the shape of IP edit protection by showing it is in fact vandalism. Ogress smash! 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect this user is operating under an IP address (203.81.69.86) and continuing his same vandalism. Where can we investigate this and have this IP address blocked indefinitely if proven.--58.106.254.122 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) - 58, go ahead and open up a sockpuppet investigation, but you always need good reason to suspect such. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Zack90 edit-warred over several related articles, including this one, a few weeks ago. He also did not notify me of this report. (Actually, I warned him, twice, and he responded by reporting me here, indicating a rather egregious lack of good faith.) The edit he's pushing is unsourced and contradicts our other articles and the sources we do have, and what little discussion there was went against him.
    Zack90 is currently also edit-warring at Northern Luri language, Southern Luri language, Eastern Baluchi language, Southern Baluchi language, and Western Baluchi language. (He might actually have a case for creating N & S Luri if he would engage in discussion and provide RSs.) — kwami (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with kwami on the potential WP:BOOMERANG issue here. Zack90 is certainly warring and is just continuing to do so without engaging in Talk page discussions to constructively explain their reasoning and attempt to resolve disputes. As noted by EdJohnston, Zack is even warring with an anti-vandal bot. Even when filing a report here, no explanation was given (and kwami was not notified). Please note that some of the same and similar articles were the topic of a recent dispute here on the noticeboard regarding warring by Mjbmr reported by Kwami (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Mjbmr reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)) that was closed as "No violation" despite a WP:3RR violation by Mjbmr, who subsequently said they were retiring, but who has now reappeared as an ally with Zack for the war. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, similar edits and behavior. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the two in my comments above.) When looking for sources to discuss Mjbmr's edits, I discovered that a couple of them might be worthwhile (with some extra work required), but they quit in disgust when they had to actually discuss and justify their edits. Now they're back, but their only editing strategy still appears to be to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Kwamikagami's page blanking at 3 Baluchi language articles is not constructive, especially when he has not explained his edits and there are move discussions in progress in all the 3 pages. Khestwol (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth mentioning that this "blanking" of "articles" was not a mere out-of-the-blue blanking of longstanding content. Rather, in all three cases, it was a revert of a very recent conversion of a redirect into an article (in the midst of other related disputes). Ordinarily, the burden of justification for a major undiscussed content change (such as creating a new article where there was previously only a redirect) rests on the person who wants to make that change, more than on the person who wants to revert it. Zack90 and Mjbmr don't even seem to be bothering with edit summaries, much less explaining their perspective on Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zack90 hasn't edited since 01:03 on 18 June. Let's hope he will choose to respond here. Perhaps he can say if he has any connection to User:Mjbmr who has amazingly similar interests in a small set of language articles. I'll notify User:Mjbmr that he was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:Mjbmr provided a (somewhat ambiguous) reply at User talk:Mjbmr. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This page states that Mjbmr has been blocked indefinitely in the Persian Wikipedia. Per this Google translation it seems likely to be the case. He had an indefinite block on meta.wikipedia.org which lasted for three years and was only lifted in 2014. The meta block was for using socks to impersonate someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems interesting that during the discussion of the request for CentralNotice adminship submitted by Mjbmr, Zack90 was the only editor that voiced support for the request, and it was one of only four Wikimedia edits ever made by that user. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action against Kwamikagami. There is a possibility that User:Zack90 is a sock of User:Mjbmr. Though I haven't submitted an SPI, someone else could. At the moment there doesn't seem to be enough behavioral evidence for a block, though that could change if either party makes more edits. User:Mjbmr has previously been blocked for socking on the Persian Wikipedia (see the above links). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is closed, I restored the original versions of the Luri and Balochi articles, only for them to be reverted by Zack90. He's even changing the name in the Balochi article to conflict with the title. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: 72 hours)

    Page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Z07x10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]

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

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

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

    It was an unreasonable mess from the start. I simply broke your concerns up into sections to allow them to be answered more clearly. It is a talk page not an article, hence I was trying to discuss your concerns. The first of those was the initial edit, which was not a reversion, you then reverted this twice, so I reverted it back twice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473692
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473938
    I have now moved the responses into the threaded discussion section.
    It should be noted that User:Mztourist lodged a complaint of OR against my article edit, which a 3rd party moderated and judged it to be a flawed complaint.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward
    Mztourist then went WP:FISHING to justify his WP:I just don't like it. He then moved to source reliability, but the sources are used thousands on times in Wikipedia already. So he quickly moved back to WP:I just don't like it and began an RFC in the form of a vote, having rejected an opportunity for formal mediating that would actually look at policy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2
    I'm currently having an article edit blocked by cliche mentality with no sound basis in policy. The behaviour displayed has been a disgrace to Wikipedia and discourages editors from participating.Z07x10 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments from an involved editor.
    First, the reported editor, User:Z07x10, appears to have violated talk page guidelines by refactoring the comments of the reporting editor, User:Mztourist.
    Second, the reported editor has altered the wording of an RFC to make it non-neutral by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEurofighter_Typhoon&type=revision&diff=667459592&oldid=667458243
    Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong.
    Fourth, the reported editor has been pushing for eighteen months to add a particular paragraph to Eurofighter Typhoon, and is continuing to forum shop to try to find ways to lock in a particular addition. There is and has been consensus against the addition. Different editors have different reasons for opposing it.

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

    How on God's green Earth does asking for a policy-based reason make it non-neutral? I was merely trying to prevent a case of WP:I just don't like it.
    By changing the wording of the survey question from one asking whether to include to one asking whether to exclude, you rendered the existing !votes incorrect and meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong. - I really mustn't speak English anymore or something. Alleged synthesis. You judged it not to be synthesis. But it wasn't a flawed complaint??????
    Where do you get 18 months from?
    A little more than eighteen months, actually.

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

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

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

    That is a different content issue, so no it isn't 18 months for this subject.Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no reasons other than WP:I just don't like it, hence why the mention of policy in the RFC wording is opposed. That's right the complainants are actually opposing the use of policy! Cliches have ruined this project!Z07x10 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Z07X10 has shown himself to be very stubborn regarding this article and he's been reported to admins several times. I've proposed on his talk page that he accept a voluntary ban from this article as a condition of continuing to edit Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear God, the cliche is here in full force now. This is a real encyclopedia problem - cliches that sit on articles and prevent any content they dislike, regardless of how well source it is. They simply get in contact with each other every time, so nobody can add any well-sourced content giving a certain POV. It's pretty damn bad when one gets accused of making a question 'non-neutral' simply because they asked for a policy-based reason. Then they get accused of edit warring because they added comments on a talk page in a discussion and another user removed them. Is that against policy anyway.
    All I did on the talk page was exactly what User:Robert McClenon did above when he broke my edit into several pieces to respond to it. Should he be reported too?Z07x10 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=667492783&oldid=667492514
    Surely if I removed his edit, wouldn't I be the one in the wrong? Yet that's exactly what User:Mztourist did. Massive hypocrisy and double standards at large here!Z07x10 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Page
    American Football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    KHLrookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "clarifying"
      2. 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

    • Comment Very clear that the user has been repeatedly told by other editors to discuss the matter on the talk page, Which in fairness he did do on the page in question. However he did not contact the users making the revisions to discuss the matter in question and even though credit is given for raising the matter on the articles talk page, He however continued reverting instead of discussing the matter which doesn't earn him any favours. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [4]

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

    1. [5]
    2. [6]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

    Comments:
    This article, about an Arab cartoonist who "is best known for his images depicting the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", is subject to the 1RR limit applicable to all articles in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The editor being reported has been involved in an edit war dating making 6 reverts over the last 4 days, and violating 1RR today, per the above diffs. I warned them and asked them to self-revert, and they refused, basically saying "others are not listening to my arguments" - see [8] All Rows4 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ill note that the content being warred over has been in the article in substantially the same form since November 2014 [9], and that several editors (including Deniss, Huldra, and Pikolas) have been warring to remove it completely with no discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Comments:

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

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: User agreed to remove the POV tag)

    We were in the midst of discussing changes to the article when Getoverpops ceased responding to our discussion and started making sweeping changes to the articles. This was my most recent response to our conversation before he started making changes.[14] Getoverpops was also warned again on his talk page about his most recent edit warring, but continued to edit war anyway.[15] Multiple short-term blocks have been implemented before and none of them seem to have any affect as this user persists to revert and edit war with numerous editors.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how this can be considered an edit war. We are discussing the changes in the talk section and we are dealing with a refinement of the section. I have been active in discussing changes with others on the talk page. The four edits (not reverts) in question are for different changes each time. Furthermore we had reached an agreement that the sources I mentioned were reasonable to add to the article. Those sources were added and now we are simply refining the opening sentence to a paragraph at the end of one section. These are hardly sweeping changes (no new sections, no change in the overall thrust of the topic).
    SD has only two things in these recent edits on which we don't agree. First, has been a refinement of the opening sentence for a paragraph that contains two differing views on a subtopic. The second is the inclusion of two references written by an academic in the field that support three other stronger sources (including one that has been in the article for two years). I ask that this notice be dismissed.Getoverpops (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This this request was posted a long time editor, RightCowLeftCoast, has at least suggested that he also feels the paragraph I was editing (three of the four edits) is imbalanced. He has also noted that the other section I was working on (the first of the four edits claimed to be evidence of an edit war) is imbalanced and needs cleanup. My edits are good faith efforts to improve the article and currently in line with the view of a long term Wiki editor. Getoverpops (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear violation of the 3RR policy and it's the 5th time this user has started editing warring on the same subject within a 2 month period. Remember, 1 full month of that he was not permitted to make changes to the article, and almost immediately from returning from his ban, he starts edit warring with multiple editors. This user as repeatedly ignored policy and talk page discussions to pursue his own agenda, and the fact that he's still trying to justify breaking WP policy shows he believes his actions are beyond reproach.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User:Getoverpops is a single-issue editor who is never going to give up. I persuaded him to take a break from the Southern strategy for one month as a condition of lifting his last block, but he's back again, still full of enthusiasm and still oblivious to others' opinions. He's been on Wikipedia since 20 Marcy 2015, and in my opinion he is on Wikipedia to convey great truths about his favorite topic. For a long-term warrior on one topic who isn't listening to feedback I think we get closer to an indefinite block every time they return to AN3. The time may have come for that. It would be helpful to get others' views before issuing such a block. (Note: I formatted User:Scoobydunk's set of links to the past edit warring reports). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Warring to repeatedly change the long-term stable

    to

    As is well-known, mercury has a serious hazard of chronic (long-term) mercury poisoning. However it's surprisingly difficult to achieve this through acute (short-term) exposure to elemental mercury metal. Deliberate suicide attempts have been unsuccessful. [16] [17]

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

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

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

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

    I had already blocked when I noted this. Editor blocked until he agrees to cease the edit war. Restored the article to the version that agrees with the citation provided in the article.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Her death is not accurately described as mercury poisoning, and is not so described by the first of the three sources cited (the other two are not currently accessible). According to that source "[dimethylmercury] is one of the most potent neurotoxins known. It readily crosses the blood-brain barrier". It is way more toxic than mercury. I shall correct the article in line with the edit-warrior's views. Maproom (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly, I would not consider that a particularly good change. As to your claim about the three sources, we have
    • [18] "the second person to die of dimethylmercury poisoning in this century." / "of mercury poisoning."
    • [19] "Losing world‐class chemist Karen Wetterhahn to mercury poisoning"
    • [20] "she slipped into a coma and died from acute mercury poisoning."
    She was exposed to dimethylmercury. She died of mercury poisoning. Now it is not incorrect to state "dimethylmercury poisoning" either, but the whole crux of her notability is because of the distinction between mercury and dimethylmercury as exposure hazards. We should preserve that distinction and make it clear, especially in wide audience introductions, such as in LoUD. To claim, "Her death is not accurately described as mercury poisoning" (your emphasis) is just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning". She died of poisoning by a particularly toxic compound of mercury. Some lazy journalists, knowing that metallic mercury is itself a poison, fail to distinguish "mercury" from "a compound of mercury". But read source 84 from the article. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to understand why both parties were not blocked in this edit war. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maprom's comment is spot-on: "She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning"." Dimethylmercury is extremely dangerous in an acute sense. IMHO, it is highly misleading, verging on irresponsible, to imply that elemental mercury is even in the same league of toxicity. Dimethylmercury is not just the delivery mode of elemental mercury that penetrates the skin because it is molecular and lipophilic, it is the agent itself (latching on to cysteine residues, one assumes). My understanding is that many cases of "mercury poisoning" occur via its (slow) methylation. Wikipedia has a role in guarding against even inadvertent chemophobia (i.e., fear based on ignorance, vs reasoned caution based on chemical facts). Mercury poisoning etc is highly topical in view of the Hg content in some coal ash or flue gas, so we should aim for consistency.
    Anyway, it seems that there must be a way of wording this thing to satisfy most parties, who seem well intentioned. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If "She no more died of "mercury poisoning" than someone who swallows cyanide dies of "carbon poisoning"." is "spot on", would you care to comment on why so many of the RS already in the article are happy to use it? Are you, with Dqeswn, describing the contents of http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY as "bullshit"?
    I cannot comment on that source. I still get a "403" message when I try to access it. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mechanism of mercury poisoning is indeed via its slow methylation, then doesn't that support the argument that her death, however the exposure happened, was down to "mercury poisoning" by the usual mechanism? It took months for her to even show symptoms, as is not unusual for elemental mercury exposure. Although the exposure was different, what supports this claim that the manner of her death was different?
    We should BTW probably move this to Talk:Karen Wetterhahn Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a super-duper expert and not agitated by this language war. I am just saying that Maprom makes a good point.
    Re http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY being bullshit. Probably. Lot of manuals and textbooks (I have one too) warn about "mercury poisoning" indiscriminately, just covering our asses as well as a general dislike of heavy metals by professional chemists. As someone who played with lots of mercury as a child and have seen images of people floating on it (in National Geographic of all places) etc, I avoid the stuff, but dont freak out. MethylHg compounds do freak me out. I realize my words are not very defining but we do have a doctor in the house User:Sbharris. @Sbharris:--Smokefoot (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    [21]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

    update - Nomoskedasticity, WP:3RRBLP says my 2nd revert was justified and there is no exemption which allows you to revert IP edit. So not only you reverted w/o taking part in an ongoing discussion on WP:BLP, you also broke 1RR rule. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the talk-page header: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors ... are exempt from the 1RR". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you are in violation of 3RR since WP:ARBPIA states editors "are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." You still haven't bothered joining the discussion and I added the fact an op-ed is used for facts which you used yourself somewhere else. But the main issue here is the clear BLP violation. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article history shows that the IP editor has now done 4 reverts in <24 hours. FTR, I have done 3, and so I have not violated 3RR; nor have I violated 1RR, having reverted an anonymous (IP) editor. Perhaps the article could do with semi-protection (though a block of the IP editor is also warranted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite amazing. An admin wrote on this case "Really, you thought you could write "X is a dangerous extremist" in a Wikipedia article and it wouldn't be reverted" (which you saw and clearly supports WP:3RRBLP) and you move ahead and add this text again? 31.44.136.75 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP is a walking disaster.
    He's broken 1RR two days running:
    He cites policy he doesn't understand, he ignores the fact that at least 3 editors of experience, myself, User:Zero0000, and Nomoskedasticity disagree and have reverted him. He makes an insinuation that denies good faith (Zero is a buddy: I guess that means I am too). He breaks 1R with impunity and then, when reverted, thinks he can both report Nomoskedasticity for breaking the same rule he himself violates, and proceed to revert back. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation, since the text restored rather than call Yehuda Glick names, cancels their relevance to him by showing that he is called everything from a civil rights activist to an extremist. That is in the documentary record, and the fact no one agrees, means none of these epithets express anything but a POV. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Background. One POV, indeed only one source, describes Yehuda Glick as a ’civil rights activist’. He is also described as a religious activist, a political activist, a far right extremist, a defender of Jewish rights, a Jewish supremicist etc. How do you handle this multiple definition? You cannot privilege any one POV.
    When editors tried to describe him by selective use of the most favourable epithet of several in one of the two sources, they were trying to tilt the text. Hence this edit by Zero, which blocked the selective POV push was correct .
    This led to a POV war, so I added the actual text of one of the two sources describing him as a ‘civil rights activist’. It reads in full:-

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

    This patently does not support describing Glick as a 'civil rights activist'. It is saying all descriptions of him cancel each other out, or controvert each other. Hence none of the terms in the source are neutral. That is what the IPs don't accept.
    Evidently, editors can’t harvest one of the several descriptors to push a POV. None of them apply, since POVs clash. My solution was to call him a ‘religious rights activist’, which fits all sources. This led to two Ips edit warring, documented here. It is absurd to insist that adding the full text implies Glick is a terrorist or extremist or supremacist, any more than he is a 'civil rights activist', and adding it does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. The systematic violation of 1RR by 2 IPs was rightly corrected after the breach of the rule, by Nomoskedasticity, as per policy.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all very interesting and me and Nishidani discussed it on the talk page. The problem is Nomoskedasticity isn't part of this discussion (he just didn't bother) yet he reverted me multiple times.
    As for the rest, Nishidani, if you have disagreement with another editor, take it to the talk page. Placing the text in a quote the is visiable to readers is BLP. Not to mention this is an op-ed which isn't RS for facts. I agree that ‘religious rights activist’ is probably more suitable but that is beyond the point.
    Back to Nomoskedasticity, he seems to be extra careful about BLP on Omar Barghouti though I attributed the text, toned it down a bit and it doesn't even come close to 'dangerous extremist'. Double standards? 31.44.136.75 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only one source, describes Yehuda Glick as a ’civil rights activist’" (@Nishidani)
    It's not so correct. See my "even Aesopian language of NYT authors does prove what you're trying to deny" at a Talk page:

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

    --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the issue through a watchlisted page in which Cwobeel restored the deeply contested insertion of "reference only" text calling the subject of the article (a living person) a dangerous extremist and a Jewish supremacist sourced to an improper and an inadequate source. It seems as if there is a concerted effort to use non-neutral attack piece to label a person in their biography. The IP may have made numerous reverts, but according to BLP - the content should never have been reinserted after the challenge. Each editor who reinserted the attack piece violated this basic policy and failed to follow WP:BLP and WP:IRS. IP editors are not third-class citizens either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This board is on my watchlist. The quoted phrase doesn't support "civil rights activist", it supports "activist in favor of expanding the access and rights of Jews at" the site. Come on, now.
    While Nishidani could have exercised more judgment in restoring the quote, it doesn't seem like it was a violation because reverts of IPs are exempt in this topic area, which is full of socks and trolls. Additionally, it wasn't included in article prose; it was in a footnote which already included part of the quote from the article and was misleading without the additions. It would have been better to remove the inaccurate information instead of restoring the quote, but I'm not sure this falls under the sanctions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for sanctions or punishment of anyone, but I don't expect "reverts of IPs are exempt" to be a valid defense. An error was made, it was not a big deal and life goes on. What matters is how this gets resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris, 'text calling the subject of the article (a living person) a dangerous extremist and a Jewish supremacist . . sourced to an improper and an inadequate source'.

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

    • Result: Filing IP blocked 24 hours. Nomoskedasticity's reverts of the IP don't count against the ARBPIA 1RR, since they are reverts of an IP. The IP enjoys no such exemption so they broke 1RR. Claims of BLP are over the top. The opinion writer being quoted from Haaretz, Anshel Pfeffer, is implying that *some people* might consider Glick a dangerous extremist but is not stating that in his own voice. The Pfeffer quote is intended ironically, and may be too subtle for our readers to understand quickly. The article could be better off without having it in the lead. Four different possible ways of describing Glick are offered. (See the four sentences that each begin with 'Yehudah Glick is..' ). The lead ought to be clear and simple and is not a place for rhetorical flourishes that might be misunderstood. The same material could be kept in a footnote if consensus thinks it is relevant enough. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ed: I also added Template:Editnotices/Page/Yehuda Glick to hopefully help alleviate 1RR issues, since ARBPIA seems to be popular today. :P --slakr\ talk / 09:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Andha Naal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ganeshiyer3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "The "Rashoman effect" does not takes place in this film. Rashoman effect is when same event in narrated by people with contradicting interpretation. What ever story each suspect says is true."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23] as anon 196.212.6.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]
    5. [27]


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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page
    Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Muffi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667587692 by Bobrayner (talk)"
    2. 22:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "there is already catagory; Disputed territories in Europe"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Page
    Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    185.62.242.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667734337 by Fauzan (talk) It literally is."
    2. 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667733496 by Fauzan (talk) You can get consensus to remove it there."
    3. 09:52, 20 June 2015 "Added references"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667732445 by Denisarona (talk)"
      2. 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    Comments:

    User is ignoring request to generate consensus on talk page Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667734337
    2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667733496
    3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667733160
    4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramadan&oldid=667734337

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

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

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


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

    Page
    Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    185.62.242.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 07:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Added sourced material on pre-islamic Ramadan."
      2. 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Fixed error."
    2. 07:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667734337 by Fauzan (talk) It literally is."
    3. 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667733496 by Fauzan (talk) You can get consensus to remove it there."
    4. 06:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Added references."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667732445 by Denisarona (talk)"
      2. 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 06:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ramadan. (TW)"
    2. 07:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Talk page */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 11:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) on Talk:Ramadan "Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2015-06-18. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger"
    Comments:

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

    Page
    Nagasena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Aman sharma (kishtwar) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"
      2. 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. Consecutive edits made from 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 07:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"
      3. 07:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Milinda Pañha */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    2. 08:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Sources */ new section"
    Comments:
    Blocked – 48 hours. Spam. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Yoga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    1987sagarkaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 11:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
      2. 11:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
      3. 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
      4. 11:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modifying"
      5. 12:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 12:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
      3. 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 13:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "modified with references"
      2. 13:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "added one more reference"
      3. 13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
      4. 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "added wiki reference page for Autobiography of Yoga and Kriya Yoga"
    5. 13:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667765917 by Winner 42 (talk)"
    6. Consecutive edits made from 13:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "Adding again the lost information, someone is deleting it... Don't know why..."
      2. 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC) "why the new additions are getting deleted...adding again...."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    2. 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, Seems like they are evading block, see Contributions/Swamikrishananda. Supdiop (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigerboy1966 reported by User:Dr John Peterson (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)

    Page: Golden Horn (horse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Tigerboy1966 has gone way beyond the 3RR (about 6 or 7 times) and ignores the Talk page.--Dr John Peterson (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    please view the edit history of the page. It's pretty obvious what's happening. Tigerboy1966  15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed a relevant SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr John Peterson. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP User talk:2.123.6.113 has also be antagonistic [29] and is probably also a sock. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: Diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

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

    I only have one revert, all infos I add is new. Only one user on talk is against the edit, and he is no being honest here. See here [30] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you want to say is that all the following discussions are fake: [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. And all the other editors (Human3015, Cyphoidbomb, Faizan, TopGun and myself) have been saying and telling you is wrong? —TripWire talk 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyphoidbomb says violations belong in article[36] Human3015[37] Faizan have no commented Top Gun has only just. So you're not being honest. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the Admin be the judge of that. —TripWire talk 19:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Making changes in content that is already a part of the article is called a revert. Regardless of whether you change one part of the article or the other, as far as you are modifying edits of other users, you are reverting. You have been doing this since Jun 13 and all I see is editwar - which is the case regardless of any discussion you ought to have started. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have only added new info, I did only 1 revert. Even Paksol/TripWire says consensus on human rights violations and adding he facts.[38] so you delete against consensus. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to mislead by lieing:
    Not a lie, consensus for edit so not revert new infos new infos stop insulting by calling liar. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the admin see who is in the habit of lying and accusing. —TripWire talk 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you saying on your userpage[39] you in Pakistani army and linking you blog and then saying on use TopGun page[40] you blog? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [42] (Undid revision 666650284 by 176.239.115.245 (talk))
    2. [43] (Undid revision 666936542 by ToonLucas22 (talk))
    3. [44] (Undid revision 667521749 by ToonLucas22 (talk))

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (Warning: Edit warring. (TW))

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]
    3. [49]
    4. [50]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:
    SansBias has made one comment to the talk page, and preemptively reported the article at DRN [53]. They have made no effort to discuss the changes, and seem intent on steamrolling their preferred content into the article. Their behaviour indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to edit war [54]. Intends to continue reverting without discussion and game the 24 hour period [55] Keri (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He’s socking now [56]. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [57]
    2. [58]
    3. [59]
    4. [60]

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

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=667917860"