Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285

Page: Operation Northwoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: USAismisunderstood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Subject warned previously but persists. Jusdafax 03:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Stop undoing my edits before you read the actual documents. Then give me an actual reason why the edits should be undone."
2. 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Then the editor is wrong. Just because one of the editors interpreted it differently doesn't mean it is true. Actually read the documents, and then talk to me about undoing my edits with a factual reasons."
3. 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "I now have a source that is reliable. It is the pdf of the released operation northwoods documents. I have read through them many times, and they support my edits. Please stop undoing my edits, and actually read the documents"
4. 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667128420 by GB fan (talk)"
5. 19:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667079356 by Ravensfire (talk)"
6. 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667030134 by GB fan (talk)"
7. 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666957777 by
   talk
   )"
8. 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666941711 by
   talk
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 10:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "/* What you can do */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk page discussion

Comments:

I have added diffs from the report I made to this report as they have edit warred after this report was made. I have attempted to get them to explain on their talk page but they just continue to revert to their preferred version. -- GB fan 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted them again in the past few hours. I believe that totals at least seven reverts by the subject. Jusdafax 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up an SPI also as a new editor has appeared and on their first edit they reverted to the same version, see [[1]]. -- GB fan 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Kevin Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 39.53.177.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]
7. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Comments: Obvious abuse.

This is blanking. Mass blanking can be considered vandalism and doesn't have to be reported to the 3rr noticeboard. But anyways,* Page protected by

_✉

21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed what was going on and have semi-protected for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Kevin Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]
7. [18]
8. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Comments: Crazy blanking of this page from an IPv6 address. Perhaps connected to 39.53.177.93 but nuts none-the-less.

I think this is obvious meatpuppetry. @

Thanks @ABCDEFAD. But for the record, my initial report was based on one IP address and then about 2 hours later, a second report was filed based on another, IPv6 address. No harm, no foul but just clarifying my context in reporting. --

talk

) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@

_✉

22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The IPv6 later jumped to 2001:590:4802:301:9c90:5db9:64e1:5369 and I blocked that one for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Zeybeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendess55 (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. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

I have tried to explain to the user - who is probably acting out of his understanding of good faith - what makes a reference. He does not seem to get it. Maybe just an official message would help. -- Zz (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the user name; User:Mendess55 with TWO Ss. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned
  WP:3RR policy before being reported here. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:
User made an edit to

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Tadeusz Nowak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666952967 by
   WP:HOAX
   currently subject to AfD"
2. 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "rm attempt to give
   WP:NEO
   hoax (currently subject to an AfD) undue prominence"
3. 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Incorrect edit to a disambiguation page on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
3. 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
4. 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit summaries */ dab page"

(disruption, battleground)

1. 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ edit warring"
2. 21:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ justify it"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Prev justification for my analysis, as pointed to and awaiting any reply. [37]

Instead,

User:Widefox has engaged in aggressive harrassment, stalking and an attempt to game the system (as this faux and dishonest report is an example of) for hours now, in his attempt to push an article about a known hoax (currently promoted by 4chan), subject to an onging AfD, by giving the hoax article an aggressively undue prominence in a disambiguation page, and incorrectly placing the only established meaning of the word in a "see also" section. I have correctly reverted this borderline-vandalism exactly twice. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drama aside, have you used the talk page as I have, and as I asked you? If not, why not? Instead, you created a FORUMSHOP at AfD (which may be procedurally closed) adding to the disruptive editing.
• Your edit history show long-term disruption e.g. Historikerstreit etc
• Several editors have asked you to use edit summaries, but you've refused. Widefox; talk 21:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only disruptive editor here is you, as indeed evidenced by your latest comment. You can wikilawyer as much as you want, the fact is that you engaged in disruptive edits to push a hoax already subject to an AfD, edit warring, and aggressive harrassment and stalking on talk pages, and now even here. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The logical flaw in that argument is that I've already marked the dab for cleanup (and noted the NEO) before you made your conspiracy theory based accusations and edit warring. Widefox; talk 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I find it rather comical that a user who has made exactly the same number of both reverts and total edits on the page in question (to give a hoax article likely to be deleted and subject to an AfD undue prominence, clearly contrary to MOS) reports the other editor for "edit warring" (after hours of harrassing the editor on his talk page). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, except that ignores the fact I flagged-up the NEO first at the dab, my edit was discussed on the talk beforehand, and you ignored all attempts to discuss at the talk even after multiple prompting and warning, so I reported your edit warring here. Widefox; talk 04:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

After my initial good faith edit (not a revert, but a normal edit), you template spammed my user talk page with a patronizing "Notice: Incorrect edit" template instead of raising any issue you might have had in a constructive manner, and you continued template spamming my talk page with numerous templates in an aggressive manner. Also, placing the only established meaning of the word in a "see also" section instead of the actual list of meanings, and only placing the contested hoax article (subject to an AfD) in the proper list, seems both clearly incorrect and not constructive to me. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Widefox's edits appear to be aimed at propagating a hoax. They look and smell like vandalism to me. -- haminoon (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Haminoon that's the same logical flaw above. Care to give an edit diff for the "vandalism"? I noted the NEO on the dab before both of you. While you may be validly removing a hoax article (I do not know), the same logic is above - I've marked on the dab that it's a NEO, but the dab has other valid meanings, so both of you countering the hoax is misplaced at the dab, and unrelated. Widefox; talk 23:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a diff: [38]. You've moved the only accepted meaning of the word "transracial" down into the "see also" section and added a completely absurd definition of the word. -- haminoon (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Check the diff again - which word? I didn't add a word in that diff. Further, it has comments explaining it per MOSDAB! Check

WP:MOSDAB - all my edits are in line with that, and the reasoning explicitly explained in the edit diff and on the talk page (which the two of you are only now using). A belated bogus defence of fighting "vandalism" doesn't justify edit warring, and detracts from what appears to be a valid hoax deletion elsewhere. Widefox; talk

00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:PTM) issues came up by other experienced dab editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial due to it being an adjective. Widefox; talk

00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk)

01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(User:Cwobeel if referring to me) Hardly - I used the talk page before anyone else was on the dab. There's many editors trying to delete the NEO, so?, the dab has been there a year. Widefox; talk 01:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(if referring to

WP:VAND explicitly states not to accuse editors in good standing as it's a personal attack, and they've provided no diff for any of these multiple accusations. Suggest they strike all these factually incorrect accusations here, at the RfD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15 and anywhere else. Widefox; talk

04:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I accept that Widefox wasn't vandalising. In the context of a number of editors trying to insert a deliberate falsehood into Wikipedia I don't think blocking anyone involved in 3RR violations here will do any good. -- haminoon (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stale —Darkwind (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Erlang (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.82.44.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Removed a reference to a highly unknown (in-)formalism. At minimum it would need to be confirmed by the Erlang authors.
2. This is rewriting history. It needs to be confirmed by the authors of Erlang. At minimum, I would expect them to answer CSP or pi-Calculus. Not the unknown Actor model nobody knew, or knows, about.
3. Find a quote where the authors of Erlang discuss Hewitt's Actor Model.
4. Cherry picking. Hoare is mentioned several times in Armstrong's thesis, Hewitt is not. It's based on CSP as by your article. I included the reference to CSP, the Actor Model is discussed there.

A freshly-minted IP editor who has hit bright-line 4RR in six hours with their first four edits. They asked for sources, they were given sources, they kept on regardless.

(Ignore the indented paras unless you care about the underlying content issue)

CAR Hoare

.

Erlang post-dates Actor by some decades. The Actor model was reasonably well-known by the time of Erlang and was in use for a number of platforms. There was even an (obscure) programming language in the early '90s called "Actor" itself. Significantly cut-down, but it did borrow aspects of the Actor model (and a lot of Smalltalk, which is also related). Despite this, there is a broadly held view that Erlang's developers were at least unaware of the 1970s Actor work, although IMHO, this stretches credibility.

This is irrelevant. The point is that either by influence or by independent parallel evolution, Erlang now uses a model of concurrency which matches that theorized originally as Actor. Considerable sourcing attests to this.

The IP editor began by removing the simple and unsourced, although uncontentious, statement "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model." That is (per much policy) reasonable editing. However their edit summary has two problems: Actor is emphatically not "a highly unknown (in-)formalism", it is basic undergraduate knowledge to any recent (post 1990s?) CS student. Nor does WP:V on WP require that, "it would need to be confirmed by the Erlang authors" – we are happy to accept WP:RS.

To improve the article, I restored this and added a reference. It's a source that's moderately well-known in Erlang teaching as it's a readable explanation of the situation.

This was removed again as "This is rewriting history. It needs to be confirmed by the authors of Erlang. At minimum, I would expect them to answer CSP or pi-Calculus. Not the unknown Actor model nobody knew, or knows, about." As before, re RS rather than authors. Although CSP is the first "standard model" for concurrency that's taught to undergrads, this is emphatically and obviously not the way that Erlang does things.

If the IP editor wants a "horse's mouth" source, I gave them one as a second reference, from Armstrong (creator of Erlang) with a direct quote to that effect. They removed that too.

The IP editor is new and AGF'ed ignorant of practices here. However when they revert as fast as another editor adds the sources they previously wanted (but then ignore) it's hard to do much else. I notice they've since (after 3RR) made a talk: comment, but it's well-hidden as a comment to a 5 year old dead thread with a confusing title, Talk:Erlang_(programming_language)#History_accourding_to_J.C3.B6rg_Mittag. A comment that even begins, "I am in a revert war at the moment.", which is hardly encouraging for someone willing to discuss their position. In the meantime though, going straight to 4RR from a throwaway IP account now makes it impossible for another editor to do any constructive work on the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from User:86.82.44.193: I haven't reverted the latest == User:Catty319 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked) ==. I have adapted it to reflect that, as the author of Erlang admits, it was inspired by the Occam language and CSP. The Actor Model by Hewitt is mostly unknown, as can also be observed in the thesis of the author of Erlang where Hewitt isn't mentioned even once and Hoare is. The Actor Model by Hewitt is mostly philosophy and has no formal standing, is hardly discussed in academia, moreover the author of the Actor Model is involved in highly contentious research without fundamental grounding such as inconsistency logics, disproving Goedel, and -more recently- the invention of Actorscript (ActorScript™ extension of C#®, Java®, Objective C®, JavaScript®, and SystemVerilog using iAdaptive™ concurrency for antiCloud™ privacy and security) (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01147821) which he doesn't get through thorough peer-reviewed channels; Hewitt is widely known for making wild claims. The Actor Model doesn't exist except for a collection of incoherent ideas. The technical report mentioned by Armstrong isn't Hewitt's actor model but one loosely defined upon it. I am sorry for the confusion, but Hoare has infinitely higher standing than Hewitt, even if the wikipedia page on the Actor Model doesn't reflect it. - Concluding: My edits are only to reflect that to the best of our knowledge Erlang is based on the highly technical research done with CSP and the occam language (as the author of Erlang, Armstrong, admits in the paper Andy Dingley mentions) and not on philosophy and wild claims made by Hewitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.44.193 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

" I haven't reverted the latest edit."

Four times now you have removed the text, "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model.". Whatever else you might have done to change the references added, you have removed this statement four times. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. With good reason. It now reads that Erlang was based on Occam and CSP. That I did it four times is meaningless, please stick to the discussion whether it is reasonable. As I stated, Hewitt is well known for making wild claims and coming with wild theories with little formal backing. You cannot possibly compare CSP to the Actor Model, which is an exercise in informal thought. CSP is very hard technical work backed by tons of research; in contrast, the Actor Model is an unknown informal thought experiment with little backing except for some master's and phd work and all professors have that. There simply is no comparison. The so called "Actor Model" is now mentioned on the CSP page, which already is stretching its importance.

Please note that, as you said, the so called "Actor Model" wasn't known by the author neither mentioned in his thesis. And I, who has be following academic research on concurrency theory for twenty years, have only heard from it since last week. It really is a highly informal unknown formalism pushed by an author who makes wild claims. Sorry. The reverts were for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.44.193 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• three-revert rule does not take into account who is "right", who is "wrong", or whether your edits are "reasonable", the point is to talk about it rather than repeat the same changes over and over. Furthermore, you should have had this discussion on the article's talk page instead of trying to conduct it through edit summaries and here on the edit warring noticeboard after the edit war occurred. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 08:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Kamala Nehru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC) " "
2. 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Thomas, this is being discussed. Do not interfere."
3. 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Try and be civil, also read
   WP:OWN
   "
4. 09:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "That is just your view, Who are you anyway?"
5. 09:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Not copied, summarized. And factual."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[40]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly adding long unencyclopaedic and POV excerpts from a book (excerpts that are not verifiable, and with no other sources), on the article about Indira Gandhi's mother. Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, see User_talk:NeilN#Kamala_Nehru. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

... and still edit warring. _Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours —Darkwind (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Erlang (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Westland Wessex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (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. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Restoration of unsourced and incorrect content "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model." Also

At Westland Wessex he persistently deleted a standard section linking to another article. He also deleted the hidden comment on the page about the importance of this section.

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]

This linked section has been removed four times now. It has been restored by two independent editors. Both of them user:BilCat and user:MilborneOne are established aircraft editors on Wiki and MilborneOne is an admin. No discussion by Dingley, he just likes to edit-war. 82.132.215.181 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The reporting IP is warring just as guilty on the Erlang (programming language). He also notified Andy by leaving a barnstar with the warning hidden inside the barnstar coding. Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Big Bang Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 (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. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Comments: In clear violation of 3RR.

• Already blocked —Darkwind (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Faruk Malami Yabo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bashirmsaad (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 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements & Awards */"
   3. 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements and awards */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 13:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
   5. 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   6. 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   8. 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   9. 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   10. 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   11. 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
   12. 13:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   13. 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   14. 14:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
   15. 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@

Note that the editor in question has not attempted to resolve the dispute in any form and has failed to communicate with anyone despite notices / warnings.

Pishcal — ♣

02:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The warnings included subsequent text about why it was inappropriate, and I also gave them notice of 3RR- if they'd bothered to read it, then I wouldn't have reported them. Also, these additions are so ridiculously promotional that any decent editor can see why they're wrong- edit warring to spam a page is never acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think

Pishcal (t c) meant that the editor you reported, Bashirmsaad, has failed to communicate. —Darkwind (talk

) 07:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —Darkwind (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes,

Pishcal — ♣

12:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Personal shopping assistant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.126.189.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]
5. [58]
6. [59]
7. [60]
8. [61]
9. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Comments: Obvious abuse of system. Also check user’s talk page where they are constantly blanking warnings and such and replacing content with “fuck off”.

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for 31 hours by Crazycomputers.

talk

) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

When contact changes minds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Popular press */ Restore necessary attribution, remove implication that piece was published on behalf of the mag, undo improper excessive emphasis of low quality sourcing"
2. 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667275377 by David Eppstein (talk) You removed all of the explanatory WSJ material as well, and you have no basis for giving the crappier source more weight"
3. 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Popular press */ Trim Singal material; user knows there is neither a policy justification nor even a false consensus to skew the weight in this way"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "/* WSJ editorial is clearly entitled to far more weight than a single recent college grad with no experience and weak credentials */"

Comments:

Straight off a block for edit warring at this very article [64], Factchecker is right back at it, with three reverts in ~12 hours. It's not a 3RR violation -- but it is edit-warring per

I reverted to a weight-neutral version while a discussion, which Nomoskedasticity has never bothered with, continues. Nomo, meanwhile, prefers drive-by reverts with no discussion nor even a stated justification. This is a simple attempt to avoid the losing end of a content dispute by removing another editor from it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomo's latest participation at talk page (today): [65]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your entire participation over the entire dispute has been to say, on precisely two occasions and without any elaboration whatsoever, that you agree with David. That's what I was referring to as not participating. That also includes your pithy but eminently unhelpful edit summaries, including "yep, I saw [the noticeboard discussion] [but decided to ignore it completely and resume edit-warring]". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for 72 hours. Yes, this is still edit warring. Any purported motives for filing this report aside, I am not going to privilege one side in this content dispute by selectively blocking the editor who's done the most reverts, and I am also not going to block all of you. —Darkwind (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) to 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 21:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"
3. 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been edit warring disruptively by adding unsourced changes to the article and has even mounted to sockpuppetry with Moonnastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• exceptions to the three-revert rule, and you reverted on this article six times in just over 25 hours. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked Callmemirela for reasons stated on their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Wikipedia:Red link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: this is the edit that removed the text on 29 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Robsinden's first revert to re-add the text 14:24, 16 June 2015
2. Robsinden's second revert to re-add the text 09:12, 17 June 2015
3. Robsinden's third revert to re-add the text 09:16, 17 June 2015
4. Robsinden's fourth revert to re-add the text 14:00, 17 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Robsinden warned by Softlavender after Robsinden's third revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Changes needed et seq)

Comments:

Within the space of 24 hours

• It's clearly not the wrong version. Text was removed without discussion, and in fact didn't make any sense, because there is a subsequent clause referring to navboxes thereafter. It's not just my preferred version, it's the version that has been stable for 5 years. Okay, I may have overstepped the reverting, but was feeling very frustrated yesterday by users who I felt were gaming the system for their own POV and then accusing me of writing guidelines to fit my view, when all I was trying to do was to keep the guideline at the status quo. Anyway, there is now a discussion in place, so hopefully we can all move on constructively. --
  talk
  ) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected —Darkwind (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Supercarrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

M.srihari (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 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667341162 by Nick Thorne (talk)removed disruptive edit . the discussion is going on and starting a edit dispute is actually not good for a "experienced"(??) editor"
   2. 14:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "minor edit"
   3. 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) to 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666389041 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
   2. 12:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666389272 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
   3. 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667337783 by M.srihari (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) on Talk:Supercarrier "/* Threaded Discussion */ Reply"

Comments:

The user has also edit warred in

A administrator whom I know, MilborneOne advised me not to make any further edits(during a dispute in the supercarrier) until a consensus is arrived upon the issue. But now, when the discussion is going on whether to include Kuznetsov,Vishal,etc. is going on, Two editors removed these references without any consensus. I was actually temporarily absent during that time. This led to these series of edits. So, If my edit is disruptive, I wish similar action to be taken on those disruptive editors too.M.srihari (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks – It looks like M.srihari is never going to let go of this article. He gets credit for joining dispute resolution, but no credit at all for continuing to revert during the discussion. Any admin may lift this block if he will promise to accept a permanent voluntary ban from supercarriers on all pages of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ABEditWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff1
2. Diff2
3. Diff3
4. Diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LINK

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: LINK

Comments:
User ABEditWiki is engaging in behaviors I have never seen before in Wikipedia. It is clearly disruptive editing at the very minimum.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was not involving in obvious Vandalism. I raised my concerns in the article talk page in detail. But without addressing any of that User VictoriaGrayson kept on reverting.
  

1.^[1]
2.^[2]
3.^[3]
My attempts for engaging with user: VictoriaGrayson on talk page of user was not (deliberately) attended by User VictoriaGrayson in an attempt to get me blocked. I have replied to the block warning issued on my talk page as well with the concerns, which was not attended as well.
User VictoriaGrayson is involving in POV pushing by protecting fringe claims in the lead of the article, without enough consensus on the matter nor adequate mainstream/RS citations to the claim.

I report User VictoriaGrayson for disruptive reversions 3 times as mentioned above as my concerns were un-addressed by User VictoriaGrayson in user talk page as well as article talk page. -- AB^Talk 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I actually agree with User:ABEditWiki on the merits of the point (and oppose VictoriaGrayson). However, I find ABEditwiki's editing behaviour intolerably obnoxious, and should be rewarded with a block. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• "intolerably obnoxious" is a good characterization. ABEditWiki's response on this page makes no sense. And ABEditWiki reverted Kautilya3 as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: No action, per discussion. To avoid a block for edit warring, User:ABEditWiki has agreed to wait for consensus before changing the article again. See his statement here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Can't Be Tamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

No voy a llorar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667463934 by ShadowRanger (talk)"
2. 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "I love you Shadow"
3. 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667537483 by ShadowRanger (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I warned for violating the 3RR at Bangerz, but continues to edit war on other pages.

Actually, the reported user seems to be

talk

) 20:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And continues to edit war even after being notified of this report. Has also made a weird comment on my talk page. --

talk

) 20:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Edit warring, disruptive editing, harassment. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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