Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive269

I second MrX's concerns, and have felt WWGB's edits to be disruptive (albeit perhaps well-meaning) in this context. Particularly problematic for me has been their decision to refer to those making edits which they disagree with as "pathetic", in doing so showing no regard for Wikipedia:Civility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a talk thread here where there seems to be a 4:1 verdict in favor of saying the parents were 'publicly accused of pushing her to suicide.' Can WWGB respond here to answer the talk thread? Is there any

WP:BLP argument regarding the parents to show that WWGB's reverts were justifiable? Usually BLP is satisfied if a reliable source is linked, though I notice that there is no inline cite for 'publicly accused'. If WWGB won't accept the result of the talk thread, can they say if there are any conditions under which they would stop reverting? EdJohnston (talk

) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to provide an update, the talk page verdict is now at 5:1. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no way this should have been reported here. Many (most?) of these reverts were undoing clear BLP violations: controversial claims about to living people linked to unreliable sources. WWGB was completely justified with this edit, for example, even if the edit summary was inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • With due respect to StAnselm, I disagree completely. This was entirely the appropriate place for WWGB's behaviour to be discussed; they may be exonerated of any criticism, but it was the appropriate place for it to be discussed nonetheless. There were no BLP violations present, as the 5:1 consensus at the talk page appears to have vindicated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "5:1 consensus" you mean - in any case, consensus is not determined by counting votes. According to our policy and long-standing consensus about reliable sources, WWGB was reverting a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#Disputed information regarding Alcorn's funeral? The five editors in question are saying that it was not reliably sourced according to BLP standards - that implies a BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the section that we are referring to; the one in question is Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#"Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide". There, five editors have agreed that the edit in question was not a BLP violation, despite WWGB's insistent and repeated statements to the contrary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, that demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension of

Leelah's Law to Leelah's Alcorn Law and added {{sic}} to the lead. The content is sourced, which you well know, and if you didn't know, you could discover for yourself in about 17 seconds with minimal effort.- MrX

20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's say is once again, slowly: BLP-related claims need to be reliably sourced, and the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add that StAnselm has been blocked before for edit warring while fallaciously claiming that he was defending against a BLP violation.- MrX 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, I respect you as an editor, but you are confusing two completely different debates over at the talk page; the one that is relevant here has nothing to do with the validity of the Daily Mail. That's a different debate being held in a different place. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see we were talking about two different things, but I wasn't confusing the issue - the Daily Mail edit was one of the reversions listed in the case report, and that's what I linked to in my initial comment. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation While I guess some edit summaries could be better, there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted. No violation found. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Which edits do you think needed to be reverted?. Please share your findings.- MrX 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of them - but particularly including the ones which suggest the (living) family "pushing her to suicide" which is, in every sense of the term, a "contentious claim about living persons." The use of "despite" is a "word to avoid" and the wording of the asserted cause of any funeral postponement requires strong sourcing per

WP:BLP. In short - this complaint fails. Collect (talk

) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, why is it that you seem to follow me to Arbcom cases, AN/EW, ANI, AE, and various other venues? Is it just coincidence? In any case, these are not BLP violations. The content did not state that her family "pushed her to suicide" which is the same non-sensiscal claim that the WWGB made on the article talk page that was roundly refuted. It stated that her family was accused of pushing her to suicide. These are very different things. For example, Dan Savage famously said that her parents 'Threw Her In Front Of That Truck'.- MrX 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not "follow" you anywhere at all. [30] in fact shows quite the opposite. When trying to cast stones at everyone else, one ought to look at one's own glass house. You should also note that I do comment at these boards, and you being here has naught to do with anything much at all. But it is nice to see you attacking everyone save yourself. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Practically anything sourced to the Daily Mail in a BLP-related article is a BLP vio, for starters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget to mention this source [31] or this one [32]?- MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And Dan Savage speaks from a extremely POV orientated view. Because of BLP we have to tread carefully with this issue. The Statement that the family pushed her to suicide is highly contentious and should carefully be examined before being used. I suggest moving this discussion back to the talk page.

talk

) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So what? - MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hell, I would have reverted this one on the grounds that this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid rag. Probably more of them, if I looked closer at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, should have never been used. I previously warned about it in the talk page but that was apparently ignored.

talk

) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Page

Kader Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eraserhead822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 5 January 2015
2. 16:39, 6 January 2015
3. 08:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC) "/* January 2015 */ notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user insists on changing a date of birth contrary to the only source given. The user has been asked to provide an alternative source , but has not done so or made any attempt to communicate : Noyster (talk), 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MoorNextDoor (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. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

And a separate edit war with PuffinSoc:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] (followed immediately by another revert).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several ongoing discussions on the talk page over several days.

Comments:

MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc are on opposite extremes of a battle over the background material in the article—PuffinSoc (and others) wants to greatly expand it, MoorNextDoor (and others) wants it effaced. Neither is seriously engaging discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, this is not about PuffinSoc who's been at it for ages without ever bothering Curly Turkey (his talk page will show who tried to contact him more than once), it's about the fact that User:Curly Turkey:

• Reverted what I've deleted and when I added a relevance template, he removed that too [42][43].
• Falsely accused me of trolling.
• Attacked me again personally, instead of answering the question.
  • Neither an attack, nor a justification for editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thinks that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to him (I can provide diffs of the his reverts if needed). MoorNextDoor (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do. I've ceased, while you've continued to revert both me and PuffinSoc after receiving a warning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Comment: I just spent some time looking at the underlying dispute here after seeing it at ANi. I also just evaluated parts of this report. The first 4 diffs against MoorNextDoor do not prove edit warring. The first is the deletion of a paragraph being fought over. The next three are insertions of dispute tags, which keep getting removed. No violation by MoorNextDoor. The counter accusations by MoorNextDoor against Curly are also without much merit in my estimation, although removing the relevance template and the linked comments are not really helpful to deescalate the situation. The second set of diffs 71-74 is indeed 4RR on the same issue by MoorNextDoor. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen the ANi page, and suggest that the page becomes a 1RR article with all relevant editors warned of this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy, attack was related to

ISIL we can slap the ISIL 1RR on it. Legacypac (talk

) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think-the charlie hebdo shooting by the kouachis is directly related to ISIL, but AQAP AQ in the Arabian peninsula, - ISIL is different.Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's disputed [44] but the 3rd gunman at the supermarket did pledge to ISIL, and there are doubts about AQAP. I'm not going to argue one way or another or a third way about AQ's role, I'm just looking to use the existing 1RR policy and community sanctions for ISIL on a somewhat related article. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to User:Curly Turkey ?

On top of the 3 I've already listed, you have to add some more reverts to his account (more could be found if necessary):

The Issue was and is still being debated, there was no consensus.

• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
  • Nor was there consensus to remove. You've forgotten to mention that I opened a discussion myself on the paragraph---your reaction was to remove it entirely an hour after the discussion was opened, and did not join the conversation until after I'd reverted you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• He removed a reference template that was added by Vice regent. When Vice regent asked him why, he falsely accused me of adding it (as if that was a good excuse).

MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@MoorNextDoor I only looked at the accusation, not if it should be boomeranged. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Notes:
  1. MoorNextDoor's final revert was after receiving a 3RR notice
  2. all such edits were to the same paragraph
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Declined – All the listed reverts are more than 24 hours old. The language being removed by MoorNextDoor in the second set of reverts was "Franco-Algerian Muslim brothers". The words he was removing can't be justified from sources, since the brothers were born in Paris. The French Wikipedia states that "Les frères Kouachi sont français de parents algériens," and our sources here agree with that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PuffinSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] << I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea what this is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] (the response was "If the Islamists on here had their way, the entire "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article itself wouldn't exist. Don't engage or appease them.", followed by an immediate revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the user has resisted attempts by several invitations to join the discussions on the talk page

Comments:

Note: please see the following notice; PuffinSoc has also been edit-warring with MoorNextDoor. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned PuffinSoc. The restoration of the disputed section was a clear 3RR violation at the time but the dispute is now 24 hours old. He seems not to be continuing the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Антон патріот (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has twice been blocked for edit-warring, and each time has continued making the same edit/revert once the block ended.

1st report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266#User:Антон патріот reported by User:Herzen (Result: Blocked) Diffs of the user's reverts in 1st report:

1. 18:30, 23 December 2014‎
2. 10:18, 24 December 2014
3. 07:02, 25 December 2014
4. 07:24, 25 December 2014
5. 07:42, 25 December 2014‎
6. 08:46, 25 December 2014

2nd report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267#User:Антон патріот reported by User:Vanjagenije (Result: Blocked) Diffs of the user's revert to the same article in 2nd report:

1. 07:41, 31 December 2014

Diffs of the user's revert to the same article since the block ended:

1. 09:02, 15 January 2015

Block log: [55]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment: Two further reverts, user has now broken 3RR (again). I'd suggest an indef block, user is just here to push his pro-Ukraine POV, as evidenced by his contributions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely I've left a note on their talkpage offeriing unblocking contingent on a topic ban on Russia-Ukraine-related topics, but their behavior to date doesn't offer grounds for optimism. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saint91 (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. Saint91 adds content
2. Sayerslle reverts
3. Saint91 reverts (Revert 1)
4. Sayerslle reverts
5. Saint91 reverts (Revert 2)
6. I revert
7. Saint91 reverts (Revert 3)
8. Sayerslle changes a different peice of content
9. Saint 91 reverts (Revert 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19 hours before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala#.22I_am_Charlie_Coulibaly.22

Comments:

• By my count, the four reverts are within the 24 hour window by a slim margin of 15 minutes (20 hours between first and last revert). Saint91 has been pushing a POV supportive of comments made by the subject, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, that sources describe as having been controversial, racist, and under investigation. He's relied on quotes from the subject themselves to dispute the mainstream viewpoint. His edits create a
  WP:WEIGHT problem by giving the subject's minority viewpoint 60% prominence in the section. This has been explained on the talk page and in edit summaries. He was also warned on his talk page. His replies have been that we should 'add more negative information' after he's written a suitable rebuttal.--v/r - TP
  17:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Burhanuddin&diff=642749355&oldid=642747764

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Attempted to discuss

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
please note that the all the edits, ever done by user:summichum is criticism of Dawoodi Bohra and its related articles.though this is not the 3rr but even after having being blocked before he is continuing to do so. Allowing such user consistently vandalize this article, questions the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. please also notice that this user is cherry picking the sources.

The User is unduly promoting the dissident minority viewpoint as the main matter giving

• Declined Your complaint here is against the criticism section which appears to be sourced. Yet your discussion attempt is regarding the section called Quote of Dignitaries. On a general note; please try to
  assume good faith when you try to resolve an issue. You start off your discussion attempt by accusing Summichum of having a POV and ask him not to revert your edits; and them ask him to "give other editors their due respect". He has raised an issue regarding sources used in the section being discussed; please respond to his arguments instead. If you have an issue with the criticism section, please start a discussion with him. Bjelleklang - talk
  22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. AureaVis adds content
2. Alessandro57 reverts and warns
3. AureaVis reverts (Revert 1)
4. Alessandro57 reverts and invites the user to discuss in the talk page
5. AureaVis reverts (Revert 2)
6. Alessandro57 reverts and invites again the user to discuss
7. AureaVis reverts (Revert 3)
8. Kingston28 reverts and invites the user to discuss for the third time
9. AureVis reverts (Revert 4)
10. Kingston28 reverts and warns the user
11. AureaVis reverts (Revert 5)
12. Alessandro57 reverts and warns
13. AureaVis reverts and finally writes in the talk page (Revert 6)
14. Kingston28 reverts, explains and warns
15. AureaVis reverts (Revert 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several times before his 7th reverting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] and [62]

Comments:

Kingston28 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andiar.rohnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63] In this version, it can clearly be seen that in the section "Muslim reactions", the sub-section "Condemning the attack" is higher than "Supporting the attack".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, January 13, 2015
2. 16:48, January 13, 2015
3. 22:48, January 13, 2015
4. 03:14, January 14, 2015

In each of these reverts, the user moves the sub-section "Supporting the attack" above "Condemning the attack".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments: The user has made 4 reverts in less than 24-hours. I recall reverting the user only 2 times, meaning the other 2 times the user has edit-warred with some other user. The user doesn't seem to have engaged in any discussion during the first 3 reverts. Even though during that time, I had posted messages on the talk page. (Here's the section: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Condemnation_higher_than_support). I posted a message to the user's talk page, pointing out to them that they had been reverting without discussing. After that Andiar.rohnds did post on the talk page, but immediately after that reverted me again (making it the 4th revert in <24hours). I also found their comment on the talk page somewhat unhelpful, esp since they started off with "Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device..." Since then, another user has posted on the talk page, and seems to also disagree with Andiar.rohnds. Coupled with the fact that others have reverted Andiar.rohnds' reverts, it seems clear to me that Andiar.rohnds' position is in the minority here.

After the 4th revert, I warned the user and asked them to self-revert. The user responded back by saying I was "confused" and I should go read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

I'll gladly take this report back if Andiar.rohnds self-reverts and agrees to resolve this matter through discussion.VR _talk 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions were had, and previously archived. Discussion still continues on main talk page. User simply will not listen and is reporting falsehoods. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since I reported the user, they are continuing to make the exact same reverts. Andiar.rohnds didn't revert me, but rather someone else. It seems Andiar.rohnds is not willing to stop reverting.VR _talk 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andiar.rohnds' usual revert is to simply swap the order of Islamic sources supporting the attack versus those condemning the attack, to put those supporting the attack first. Andiar.rohnds often cites Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response as his reason for reverting, but I am unclear on whether that talk thread reached any conclusion. Maybe the submitter of this 3RR, User:Vice regent, wants to comment? I confess that Andiar.rohnds comment at the beginning of the thread suggests that his motivation is personal POV and does not show a desire to reflect what reliable sources have written: "This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)" It is unclear how Wikipedia policy justifies Andiar.rohnds' reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At no point in the section (Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response) does Andiar.rohnds give an explanation for changing the order of the Muslim sources, except for one comment on 13:52, 10 January 2015. Whereas the edit-warring happened Jan 13-14. By the time the edit-warring happened, that one comment had been archived anyway. On the other hand, 5 minutes after the edit-warring above started, I posted a comment. Andiar.rhonds didn't discuss at that section while continuing to edit-war, until much later.

You're absolutely right that it is unclear how their reasoning is in line with wikipedia policies. I actually have a hard time understanding Andiar.rhonds' arguments at all, which are often aimed at attacking a particular user (like myself or someone else) than at justifying their edits.VR _talk 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that there are several users who disagree with Andiar.rhonds viewpoint (for example this user). Meanwhile Andiar.rhonds continues to revert and say things like "Sources are not always correct, even in abundance", undermining basic wikipedia policy that tells us to rely on sources and not original research.VR _talk 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I just blocked the editor for 60 hours, after an ANI thread and the occurrence of yet more edit warring (over a fair-use photograph). Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Page

Scientific Research Publishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "For all who do not have much time. Just read the title of the reference. This case has nothing to do with what is reported by Abrahams or Sanderson."
2. 18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "You can revert as much as you want, but 2010-1=2009 will still be correct as I explained before!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC) to 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Abrahams published in 2009. Sanderson wrote in 2010: "Late last year"."
   2. 01:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "I put the 244 in and had a reference for it. Now I found a better one not a blog entry, but a page from a respected organisation. Just keep it, ok!"
   3. 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "What Beall states has nothing to do with his list of criteria! We can not write this, because it would be OR. So, I just want to separate these separate things with a blank line. Just leave it! Ok?"
   4. 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ""its journals" means "all of its journals". Abrahams collected prove for one. Sanderson wrote "at least two". Maybe more, but prove is missing. Let's just get these statements correct. May one more edit stay? Thanks."
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC) to 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Better reference for "244""
   2. 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ""The company has been included" does not say who did it. Now it is clear."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Very likely a COI issue that is getting out of hand; in any event, warning ignore, so this user needs a break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also reported this yesterday at

WP:RFPP (requesting indef semiprotection) but there has not yet been time for a response there. —David Eppstein (talk

) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am glad we start to discuss how the page is being edited. The NPO is defined to a certain extend by the majority of the editors involved. Not many are in favor of the Chinese publisher. The page was started reporting about something controversial - not because someone got the idea to report about the existence of the publisher. I tried to bring in a little general material and I had to teach myself how Wikipedia works. I had only started two other pages before, nothing controversial, easy. One page was pushed by others nicely. It was always difficult to edit this page here, but a very small percentage of what I tried to bring in stayed over the long time. There are just very few reliable sources available. Blog entries against SCIRP are not deleted by the other editors, but a PDF from the publisher's page or a blog entry at the publisher does not stay (even if it shows the publisher's view defending the company from maybe exaggerated critique given on Wikipedia's page and references included). Most of the controversies section is based on one person Jeffrey Beall and his concept of "predatory open access publishing" (a concept used against open access publishers) which is much debated on the related Talk page. I think we have made use of the Talk page sufficiently. The other editors seem to have given up discussing there. Maybe too much work involved, or no good arguments left, I do not know. I explained my edits at length, too long for some editors ("TL, DR"). I always give reason in the Edit summary for every edit no matter how small. There is not much argument included in return - I mean something I could learn from. What can I learn from "Nonsense"? A problem is also that it is not possible to change 5 lines in a structured way. Things get reverted by "undo" faster than you can think. So, I have to limit myself often to single word changes, see if they survive (mostly not) and continue form there on. As they mostly do not survive and I do not want to change in the same place again and therefore just take another piece of the text that needs correction and change a little thing there. 10 steps forward (with references, Edit summary, Talk page) and 9 back is about the ratio of advancement. I was asked to go by Wikipedia rules and tried to list the violations by those who constantly revert my edits. Please find it on the Talk page: Talk:Scientific_Research_Publishing#Is_wikipedia_really_neutral.EF.BC.9F. Yes, I know: "TL, DR". --31.19.210.13 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Edit requests can be made on the talk page. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Pyramid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.170.14.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pyramid#Obligatory_talk_page_section

Comments:
Inserting obvious errors, apparently trying to defend it by saying it's an opinion. Either

• User:Dougweller as a sock of Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]

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

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

Comments:
The edit warrior persists edit warring on Meghan Trainor-related articles, 2 reverts on

• Bogus, retaliatory report. See this [80] above. As I wrote there to the closing admin, the edit warring by MaranoFan has started again. Different article, yes, but the same edit warring behavior - in this case, he blanked reverted everything I had done to the article today. I responded stupidly to this by reverting back in what he reverted out. But, I quickly realized my error and reverted myself five minutes later (both instances here [81] and here [82]). The disruptive behavior and tag-teaming by both MaranoFan and Lips are Movin is escalating, including tag-team edit warring and tag team placement of bogus warnings on my talk page over the last few days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of the words "retaliatory" and "tag-teaming" manifests that this users sees Wikipedia from an edit warrior POV. All warnings placed on his talk page were relevant to his behaviour as pointed out in the diffs above. All of which he ignores, and has ignored his warning from

WP:3RR last night. His false claim that I have edit warred when I have not made a single revert in the last 24 hours (see my contributions) is furthermore a suggestion of the behaviour this editor goes about when editing Wikipedia. - Lips ^{are movin}

09:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that even Winkelvi's report above may be characterized as "Bogus" or "retaliatory" based on

WP:ANI#Meghan Trainor-related article derailing and harassment of involved editor. Marano ^fan

09:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. @Lips Are Movin: This report is a mess. First, don't list links; list diffs. Second, you are including edits to two different articles blended into one list. Looking at the page you're actually reporting, Meghan Trainor, I see no violation of 3RR by the reported user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]
6. [88]
7. [89]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:
The editor has made more than 5 reverts on the page within 24 hours. Per

All the reverts listed here are on his talk page, user pages are exempt from the 3RR rule. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is harassment anyway. If anyone has to be blocked here, it is MaranoFan. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Please block me for a day so that I can at least be rid of the above report by Winkelvi. Marano ^fan 15:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. @MaranoFan: Leave Winkelvi's Talk page alone. You are Warned that if you persist in your previous conduct, you risk being blocked without notice. Your last comment here is incomprehensible. In any event, Bladesmulti cannot block you because he is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

User being reported

Lips Are Movin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 5 edits by
   TW
   )"
2. 07:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 9 edits by
   TW
   )"
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Collaboration */ new section"

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

1. [94]

Comments:

Tag-team edit warring to avoid violating 3RR and signs of

Lips has been reverting my edits at other Meghan Trainor articles as well for the last several days. At DRN (here [96]) and other talk pages, both have been told by admins and an non-admins alike to stop edit warring, stop discussing editors, start talking about edits, and begin to work collaboratively as well as use the article talk page to discuss.

Both editors appear to have ownership issues and are being more disruptive than productive. At this time, after looking at the edits of both through the eyes of the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool, I'm starting to think we might have a sockpuppet situation with both working the same articles and backing each other in tag team edit warring, content disputes, and awarding each other barnstars and other forms of support. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note MaranoFan has just started edit warring on this page by reverting out edits I have made to this report. See here: [97]

• Update It seems at least one of the edit warring editors, Lips, is finally taking advice regarding the article bloat and is recognizing that it needs to be trimmed down. This advice was given on the article talk page [98], along with this [99]. Lips responded with this [100]. If both editors reported here for tag-team edit warring can agree with policy that others beside themselves are welcome to edit the article and that edits from those other than these two accounts (Marano and Lips) will not be discounted and reverted, they will cease edit warring, and cooperative editing will start taking place, I will ask that this report be closed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This report is redundant as the reporter himself has made over 17 reverts (visible in his contributions) over the past day, has been derailing Meghan Trainor-articles, adding unsourced content and removing sourced content without consensus on the talk page, see also:

WP:ANI - Lips ^{are movin}

08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I did not violate

WP:3RR and should not be blocked due to this request.- Marano ^fan

08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go with complete honesty and without a bias. To start, yes, they have awarded each other Barnstars, but only one each. And really, do they matter all that much? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:The similar edits are a result of similar musical choice. Seriously?, My only barnstar to Lips was actually in itself asking him to expand a section. And Lips' barnstar to me was a teamwork barnstar. I was fine with your edits till now as you were only vandalizing namespace articles, but now accusing me and Lips of sockpuppetry? I did not think that you would sink so low to defend your personal arguments. If we were the same person, why would I "ask" him to expand anything? Marano ^fan 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you want to accuse someone of socking, do it at the Sockpuppet board only. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI. - Lips ^{are movin}

10:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:MaranoFan and User:Winkelvi are warned for edit warring. These issues are so important you need to revert immediately, but they are not important enough to discuss on the talk page? If this continues, blocks or protection may be needed. 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed, I'd really appreciate it if you would look at this [101] as the edit warring by MaranoFan has started again. Different article, yes, but the same edit warring behavior - in this case, he blanked reverted everything I had done to the article today. I responded stupidly to this by reverting back in what he reverted out. But, I quickly realized my error and reverted myself five minutes later (both instances here [102] and here [103]). Please look into this. The behavior and tag-teaming by these editors is escalating, including tag-team edit warring, tag team placement of bogus warnings on my talk page over the last few days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed, you can now add to the list harassment, taunting, and edit warring at my talk page by MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin as well as deleting what I have written on the talk pages of others. [104], [105]. At this point, both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin are engaging in little more than tag-team disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Lips didn't even touch the article. So you are way off-point with your tag-teaming remark. 2. A very experienced editor passed the article for GA and suddenly one day, Winkelvi swoops in and says everything is wrong. So I panicked and replaced the article content with my word file. (SO this is the completely wrong forum as my edit wasn't a revert in the first place) 3. The article is a GA and I intend to keep it that way. Marano ^fan 08:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110] Multiple warnings from Multiple users: [111]

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

Comments:

The user Aergas has repeatedly ignored all forms of civil dispute resolution through the talk page, even against other users such as myself, and has engaged in multiple edit wars against multiple users, even when it is agreed on in talk page consensus what the standards for content should be. He has even resorted to calling all people who oppose him on the talk page as 'one person' in some sort of bizarre ad hominem, in the talk page. Alon12 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only made two reverts, who were around 10 hours appart and were to keep in line with Wikipedia's codes of conduct, which state "Do not revert, discuss" the other edit (middle one) was the merging of one section within another and didn't meet protest of any of the users involved in the discussion. There is no existent talk page consensus yet, we are working on it right now with good results, and both parties involved (Me and Jytdog) have agreed to not revert anything. There is convincing evidence of a sockpuppeter currently involved in the whole "Mexicans of European descent" affair, it involves two accounts, not all of the editors who have participated there, but this is for another noticeboard/place. Aergas (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Do not revert, discuss": You have already violated this concept many times, for removing sourced data, which I inputted into the article. Here is a diff, which spawned multiple diffs in which you engaged in an edit war [113] You were warned by third party users as well, not to engage in an an edit war.[114] You have nonetheless continued with edit wars against multiple users on this page. Alon12 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Explained simply: when there is a dispute, you shouldn't add new material if said material is related to the issue at hand that wasn't there before the dispute begun and you shouldn't remove material that is related to the dispute if it was there before the dispute begun. That's what the "don't revert, discuss" lineament is about. Aergas (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about separate material. That was not what the controversy of potentially removable disputed material in the section was talked about in the talk page. I added new data on another subject. You repeatedly violated this rule of '"Do not revert, discuss"', and removed my sourced data, all I did was add additional data from numerous sources, and you engaged in an edit war to undo those edits. Alon12 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is part of an exhausting two-person revert war on a topic that attracts little or no interest from anyone else. The article was fully protected on 6 January for three days in the hope of stopping the war, but it looks like it will go on forever unless other editors do something. They took this to

Mexicans of European descent everywhere on Wikipedia. Debates about racial purity may not be the best use of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to protect the article to prevent any possible edit warring for one week or the time that is necessary to resolve the discussion. I don't think that more extreme measures are necessary, the discussion in the talk page for Mexicans of European descent finally seems to be going somewhere and the editor in question is starting to understand [115]. Aergas (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:EdJohnston and disagree with Aergas as to how to resolve. I don't see the point to another lock of the article, which will permit them to argue. The previous lock of the article did not help. After mediation was dropped, both the edit-warring and the non-productive discussions resumed. A block of both parties, who have already been warned more than once, for edit-warring could provide at least the possibility that previously uninvolved editors, called by Legobot for the RFCs, could take another look at the article. A month is a long block; I would suggest two weeks. In any case, I would support lifting it from either editor if they agree to ignore the article for that period. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas is now blocked two weeks per my comment above. The block reason is long-term edit warring and failure to make effective use of dispute resolution. I'm accepting Robert McClenon's advice on the block duration. Now waiting to hear a response from User:Alon12 (who has been off Wikipedia) before closing this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issues with the article are the

Factual lack of understanding of basic facts, including the inability to even understand mere abbreviations from genetic studies. I am not exaggerating on this, I had to hold his hand through describing what specific abbreviations in a genetic study implied. See my talk page. He even admitted he was wrong on this through the long process.

Social Inability to work with consensus on a talk page, overwrites multiple users in edit wars without first consulting talk page See the talk page on mexicans of european descent[116]. Other users also commented on, for instance, the relevance of having americans included on the page, he took the opposite position, but he never addressed him. Supposedly this is because the other editor never formally edited the page, so in the world-view of aergas, he was never 'a threat' to his intentions for the page, which are not based on desires to reach a formal and fair consensus.

Bias-based He seems to hold a very strong view of proving mexico is some sort of genetically european country, despite the findings of the aggregate consensus of leading mexican geneticists showing the exact opposite. This is currently being discussed as presented by a third party in another issue. [117]

Language difficulty He seems to have issues in understanding subtleties found in the english language, and takes every comment personally. The funny thing is that my original statements on this subject, which were relevant to this topic, were chastized as being 'unfriendly' by Robert, yet later Robert claimed that both parties were civil. I was not trying to be 'unfriendly', I was simply providing an honest opinion. And sure enough, apparently, this is a legitimate critique and not a harmful one, that can be made under a

Editing beyond your means Very easily gets frustrated when his edits are reverted to the extent he chooses to engage in an edit war and ignores talk page consensus

Lack of technical expertise He has claimed original research, providing contrarian un-sourced views to that of the findings made by leading mexican geneticists. Original Research is also something other editors have accused him of [118].

Grudges He seems to associate me as his 'enemy', and calls anyone who opposes him as a sockpuppet of myself. He has done this on multiple unrelated subthreads.

Inability to talk about incremental changes On literally every single sub-thread, including those not related to the topic at hand, he continually brings in the same content disputes, again and again. Even on the DRN we had, he refused to drop the heading 'full-european descent' and refused to including my sourced data on the historical data demonstrating the minimum requirements to be considered criollo or 'white mexican' was of 7/8ths ancestry, until Robert basically, said, that he would allow it. [119]

Is there a specific way to determine

Alon12 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexicans of European descent and failure to make effective use of dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: Dennis Adonis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ten Letters to Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Webwatchergy (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:

article 1:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]

article 2:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]
5. [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (not relevant, as this is not a content dispute)

Comments:
User is edit-warring to remove Afd templates from the above articles, despite being asked to refrain from this and instead participate in the discussions.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Edgar181.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:28, 18 January 2015
2. 19:36, 17 January 2015
3. 19:21, 17 January 2015
4. 18:40, 17 January 2015 (this is revert to previous version with wording "alleged" preferred by this user: [132])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133] - by uninvolved administrator; the user was also warned of discretionary sanctions in Eastern Europe subject area, where this article belongs

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [134]

The fourth revert wasn't bringing back any major information, and it isn't my "preferred word" it's a fact as there were allegations. I mentioned all of that on the talk page of the article. --Leftcry (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for edit warring. If Leftcry makes any more reverts on suspected versus alleged, or on calling this event terrorism, they may be blocked unless prior consensus was found. I'm also issuing an alert under
  WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And this is his edit in the same page after your warning. Too bad. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What? This edit has nothing to do with my previous edits. The fact that I was warned not to edit war doesn't stop me from being allowed to edit the page. --Leftcry (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you was warned about EE discretionary sanctions. Your delinking was POV-pushing in the same direction (a whitewashing of an allegedly terrorist group). Not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You reported me for edit warring and that is what I was warned about. My delinking was not white-washing anything. First, the link was completely redundant as Novrossiya is already linked earlier in the article. Second, as I said many times before, it is POV pushing to label either of the sides of the conflict as "terrorists" and that is exactly what that link was doing. Either way, I was reported for edit warring and this edit is not related to my past ones. --Leftcry (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is understandable who are that terrorists. Ukraine associates them with

United Armed Forces of Novorossiya is not necessarily because it is clear by default who are the terrorists (if we are talking about Ukraine's statements). Perfect Reason (talk

) 08:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• He continues edit warring on another related page [135]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring on that page, I removed unsourced material, which was supported by User:YSSYguy. --Leftcry (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect,

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, my intention was to remove the unsourced information and with it I mistakenly removed the sources as I thought the sources were only targeted to the last sentence, but since they didn't say anything about the last sentence I removed them. YSSYguy then returned the sources but agreed with removing the unsourced information which I thanked him for. --Leftcry (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Leftcry. Under those circumstances, I understand it to be an honest error on your behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Page: