Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive361

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours Modifying quotes. Really. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and University of California, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.71.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

University of California, Berkeley Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

University of California, Los Angeles Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:69.71.194.34 (not a diff; it's the only edit made to that Talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] and [30]

Comments:

Note that one of these article already has pending changes applied due to previous, unrelated vandalism. But the fact that this editor is edit warring over the same general content over two articles despite a warning and without discussion in Talk even though one article has pending changes applied indicates to me that blocking this editor is the best course of action to stop this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Amanda (aka DQ)
  17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

Atkins diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dbhall2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Effectiveness */"
2. 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825608035 by
   talk
   ) please resolve in talk page. This is editorial, inaccurate, and not "plain language""
3. 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825606830 by Doc James (talk) non nuetral point of view (only), incorrect description of the control conditions (not dieting at all, vs. behavioral counseling for weight loss)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) to 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825603815 by
      talk
      ) editorial ("only") see WP:NOR; also, short term benefit is well evidenced (as discussed by the reference)"
   2. 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825603568 by Doc James (talk) not supported by reference."
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) to 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825415316 by
      talk
      ) very much relevant, as without it it implies inferiority to other commercial weight loss products"
   2. 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Removed language incorrectly summarizing Gudzone review, including the odd and loaded way of characterizing the control condition (behavioral counseling for weight loss is not "even compared to not dieting at all")."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [31]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Summary of evidence */ r"

Comments:

User seems fixed on a certain wording and is warring to get it; not engaged on discussion on Talk page initiated by other users.

Learning to use talk. Have engaged. Reporting user is fixated on wording with a non-neutral point of view that is not supported by the cited references, as demonstrated in the talk page: "we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate, the major change in the reverts I made were to remove obviously false summaries of the cited review (see the talk page for this topic).User:DBhall2

• Warned I did block, but then unblocked. User is engaging in talkpage, and blocks are preventative. Feel free to poke me if the edit warring continues. --
  Amanda (aka DQ)
  17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37], [38], [39]

Comments:

• Repeated addition of unsourced or copyrighted text. 32.218.40.132 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  Amanda (aka DQ)
  17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

) and other pages

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825662431 by Legacypac (talk) I have moved the comment to the talk page"
2. 17:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825662100 by Legacypac (talk) then leave a comment without the AfC template"
3. 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825642391 by Legacypac (talk) not AfC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Relative_cycle

Comments:

User continues to remove my comments at this draft, in MfD (link) and even off my own talk page. A short block is now warranted. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) At MfD [40] and even my own comments off my own talk page [41] here [42]

The problem is that this is part of their attempt to build the case against me. I have stopped reverting. Please don’t enable them. — Taku (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a report of edit warring and repeatedly removing proper comments by another user. Don't do it. I warned you on User_talk:Primefac#For_your_consideration as well. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I counted wrong?? There were three reverts and I stopped. If this is not your stalking behavior, I don’t what it is. I have also initiated the thread in the talkpage. -— Taku (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

4 reverts are not required to be considered edit warring especially when you are reverting the same user on other pages in quick succession. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is not your standard report. I'm looking into it, but it'll take time as other factors are involved. --
  Amanda (aka DQ)
  18:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Not required but not needed since the talk was started by me. — Taku (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  About the removal of their comments: I removed some of their comments because I though their part of the continuing attack on me not realizing some of them not meant to personally. I can agree that I try not to misjudge that they are not meant personally. — Taku (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Amanda (aka DQ)
  19:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [45]

Comments:
Obvious SCW 1RR violation. I told the user to self-revert, but this is the response I got. The reverts are themselves disruptive for removing reliably sourced information.

• Warned Wickfox notified of general sanctions. Any more reverts will likely result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@

Étienne Dolet (talk

) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@

EtienneDolet: 1) I tend to want to see the general sanctions template given to new editors before a block. 2) By the time I looked at this report they had already been re-reverted by a different editor. I was going to tell them to self-revert or be blocked but that was rendered moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Neil!

Étienne Dolet (talk

) 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Сonsensus
• Сonsensus
• Сonsensus.

• Non-consensus
• Non-consensus
• Non-consensus.

TaaniOk (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple duplicates

• No violation @
  WP:3RR. There's a slow motion edit war that could use more discussion instead of admin action. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:3RR--TaaniOk (talk
    ) 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @TaaniOk: It seems that you are trying to get an admin to block the multiple editors who disagree with your edits. Stop this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No

To the total :

It is requested that the page history of

@TaaniOk: This isn't the place to request a histmerge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@

2015–16 Montenegrin crisis before you are blocked instead, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Montenegro attempted coup histmerged... --Zoupan

23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't understand.--Zoupan 23:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

Mitragyna speciosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ptb011985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "broadening statement to an appropriate level, rather than reducing to be in conflict with multiple reliable sources; this should be an acceptable compromise"
2. 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825805936 by
   talk
   ) discussion is ongoing; and editors disagree; bullying your point in won't work"
3. 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "better wording for attribution"
4. 04:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "single source; no talk consensus to back non-atribution; multiple reliable sources dispute FDA claim; claim not consensus-representative since multiple-RS support not yet established"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */ c"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Suggestion to name FDA as source of information in lead */ Done here"

Comments:

User wants certain wording about the FDA in the article, and over several days has been repeatedly altering the article to get it.

Editor is mischaracterizing edits. 'Better attribution' was a modification, not reversion, of an existing edit apparently in agreement with what that editor wanted, and the latest was new content and not a reversion to past content. So there have only been two genuine reversions in the last 24 hours. Meanwhile Alexbrn has already made three full reversions, including the latest which was mischaracterized as correcting a typo. There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page and edit history involving 10-15 editors, and rather than continue the discussion Alexbrn and 2-3 other editors have been zealously reverting edits (in a rotating fashion where they each are routinely nearing or reaching but not exceeding three reverts/day) with comments now as vague as 'good,' while refusing to continue the discussion.Ptb011985 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: University College London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 144.82.9.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825625189 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Concise introduction"
2. 11:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825577151 by Robminchin ([[User talk:Robminchin|talk) That can be left for the ranking section. Not appropriate for the introduction.Needs to be a summary. This sentence is most neutral. No 'leading' ect"
3. 00:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825517019 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Restored to neutral and factual statement"
4. 21:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "There certainly seems to be disagreement by the Durham grad. Hence reverted to old statement that seemed to cause no major problem.Lets just leave it how it was then.I did feel the change earlier was more suitable&different.We should discuss more/notblock"

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 21:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on

Comments:
IP reverting multiple editors, despite discussion on talk page, restoring Boosterism. Scr★pIron^IV 21:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)|uid=144.82.9.5}}

• And yet another revert after the filing of this report here. Scr★pIron^IV 13:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

Auschwitz concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dert45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dert45, a sporadically used account, was blocked for 36 hours on 11 February by Cyberpower678 following this EW report. The block was for repeatedly removing from the lead, since 2009, that Auschwitz was in Poland; sometimes he also added that it was in Gau Silesia (the Nazi German name for the area). The implication is that the area was really in Germany, not Poland, because Poland was occupied at the time.

He has gone right back to making a similar edit. His latest, 18:17, 15 February, retains that the camp was in occupied Poland, but adds that it was in Nazi Germany and Gau Silesia.

• Changes "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II" to
• "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated in Nazi Germany in Gau Silesia in areas of occupied Poland during World War II."

SarahSV ^(talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• 20:35, 15 February 2018: ditto, posted after he was told about this report.

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 14:00, 13 February 2018
2. Revision as of 02:42, 15 February 2018
3. Latest revision as of 13:49, 15 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

I've already warned the user on his talk page and he deleted the warnings soon after. The user keeps introducing deliberate factual errors. Not only is his source unscientific but the statement is wrong and misleading according to even his own source; specifically the source says "Middle East" rather than "Levant" which the former implies a much larger region. He is also not the first user to keep reintroducing the same deliberate factual error as can be seen from the discussion on the talk page. Also, from the discussion page it is clear that the user is more interested in including "criticism" (commentary and opinions) rather than actual objective scientific studies and results which is equivalent to pushing a point of view

Uninvolved comment This one looks really murky to me. I lurk on this page time to time to but rarely make any edits to the main or talk page and I have watched this one unfold. Dr.Greyhawk himself has been edit warring: these reverts by him all happened in 24 hours [[48]] [[49]] [[50]]. As for his claim of POV pushing by Tritomex, I stalk pages not users, but on this one it seems that if there is POV pushing, Tritomex is no more guilty than Dr.Greyhawk himself, who appears to have spent his time trying to remove RS material that criticizes the

How can I be pushing a POV when I am trying to be as objective as possible by including the most recent scientific studies and removing either factual errors and commentary/opinions/conjecture? By the way, on some of my early reverts I noted for people to see the discussion on the talk page but no one bothered. I this not Wikipedia? Or is factual objective information now secondary to opinions and feelings? Looks like you have your own narrative to push. If you have objective scientific studies which refute ElHaik's studies, which is not exactly "the Khazar theory," then go ahead and include it, otherwise keep opinions, commentary, unscientific criticism off of the page because any user can equally do the same with every single study cited on the page which will just transform the page into a book of subjective opinions and conjecture Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, yes Elhaik is effectively the Khazar theory, and you deleted nearly 6K of RS-backed material was (among other things) discrediting it[[51]]. You were reverted by two different editors but you persisted, reverting three times to delete material that was discrediting... a

fringe theory. Looks bad man. As for your accusation on me, well, if I had my own narrative to push I would probably be editing that page. But I'm not. I'm just here, afar, watching this in dismay. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk

) 21:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between "RS-backed" and "scientific sources;" you are trying to use non-scientific sources to discredit actual scientific research. I can find reliable sources that push my own narrative too but it has no place here. Anyways this report is not even specifically about that block of text you are talking about, you are deflecting from the actual subject. Tell me why is it that I have to remove this blatantly factually incorrect statement numerous times even after fully explaining the reason?

...with most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes.

At first it wasn't even sourced properly or verifiable, then eventually someone added a source and the source itself was unscientific and that source even said something that was different than the statement. Therefore the statement is still false yet it is still standing there after having been removed numerous times, explained in the discussion, and having users warned about it. How is that possible? Seems like someone is violating the rules and it isn't me. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to what? No sir, I have never edited this page. I made a more detailed response here but I deleted it for fear of cluttering the page [[52]]. Look indepth at the sources taht were deleted (as this earlier post shows in a blockquote). They look like quite applicable sources to me -- looks a lot more like

WP:JDLI. Anyhow, as I'm not actually involved in this, I'll bow out for now. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk

) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User Dr.Greyhawk opened his Wikipedia account only a week ago, and immediately went to the "Genetic origin of Jews" by removing RS backed criticism of controversial Elhaik papers and by adding more material in support of Elhaik claims (in support of Khazar theory of Ashenazi Jewish origin)-This was exactly the same pattern used by 7 previous scockpuppets of user [Historylover4] who all after creating their accounts immediately went to same article and did the same. They removed RS backed criticism and added more material in support of Elhaik theory. [53]. At least 6 SPI investigations were conducted and every time it came out that sockpupets of Historylover4 edited the same page, with same intention and in same manner (through edit warring). The blocked accounts are 1.User:Cityslicker4 [54], 2. User:Saruman38 [55],3. Youngdro2 [56], 4. User:Freudk [57] 5. User talk:Do not collect [58] 6. User Avrahambeneliezer [59] and now the same pattern is used now by Dr.Greyhawk. It could be argued that this topic is related to Arab-Israel conflict and therefore restricted accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure. However, even beside this I wish to say few words regarding the subject. The Khazar theory of AJ origin and the Slavic origin of Yiddish, as advocated by Elhaik, Wexler and Sand was rejected by virtually all historians, linguists and geneticists. Most of whom consider this theory as fringe. The article covers the Elhaik papers on multiple places, but it also presents the prevailing opinion and criticism from leading experts in this fields. As I have strong reasons to believe that we have here a newest case of sockpuppetry with same intention (to remove criticism of Elhaik) I am filing a new SPI report.Tritomex (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:46, 16 February 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 826061252 by General Ization (talk)"
2. 23:43, 16 February 2018‎ (UTC) ""
3. 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826059921 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 23:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Restoring reference and referenced info"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) to 23:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 23:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
8. 15:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
3. 23:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
4. 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
5. 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Pinging @C.Fred: and @BillCat: for any comment as they were among editors who reverted and were reverted during the EW. General Ization ^Talk 23:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Er, make that @BilCat. General Ization ^Talk 23:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• The user's edit history suggests an intent to edit this article. An edit-warring block might be the least of the sanctions that are justified here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: Aleksa Šantić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.148.90.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]
7. [67]
8. [68]
9. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
The user is refusing to reply on both his/her talk page and on the article talk page. He/she is obviously aware of how Wikipedia works (being able to cite sources using proper templates) but does not care to cooperate or acknowledge guidelines when presented with them. He/she also refuses to acknowledge the talk page consensus, for the most bizarre of all reasons, and refuses to use any talk page for any purpose. For what it's worth, this is a classic example of disruptive editing motivated by ethnic nationalism. Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My kind requests that the IP user use the talk page[72][73][74][75] and respond to my comments there[76] have been duly noted but blankly refused[77]. The audacity is astonishing. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(univolved user) Vanjagenije, could you please explain why Surtsicna was blocked in this case? --Marbe166 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marbe166: Becaouse of making 10 identical reverts at Aleksa Šantić in the time span of ~40 minutes. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "you can read the books from Halil İnalcık, there aren't as many resources in english when it comes to early ottoman empire."
2. 21:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Educate yourself. Sufi islam and Anatolian Alevism are not the same and Alevism is regarded a Sect."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) to 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 801133382 by باسم (talk)"
   2. 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "ottoman sultans up until Selim I were alevis."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

funny how this guy changes history and i'm the guy who is being under the radar. as told before, there are not many resources on this subject in English, just ask any trained turkish historian and he'll tell you the facts, oh and this guy who is spreading lies is from lebanon, so chances are he does not know turkish. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanathalas (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is only an example of the simultaneous edit wars being conducted by this editor. See the following articles:

• Bayezid II
• Mehmed the Conqueror
• Bayezid I
• Orhan
• Mehmed I
• Osman I

General Ization ^Talk 21:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 3 February 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:23, 16 February 2018
2. 23:02, 16 February 2018
3. 01:11, 17 February 2018
4. 04:57, 17 February 2018

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All edits by TheTruthiness were to remove content from an established consensus version. Invitation to discuss on Talk here: [79] New source added to meet TheTruthiness' concerns here: [80]

Comments:

The Truthiness is engaged in an edit war, using supposed BLP concerns as the basis for singlehandedly fighting consensus, ignoring the talk page, and repeatedly removing sources, all with the aim of "white washing" Faith Goldy, best known for her sympathetic coverage of the white supremacists at Charlottesville. Newimpartial (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected At the time the BLP problems were valid. See my talk page for more. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (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. [81] (Original edit - the 'B' in
   WP:BRD
2. [82] First revert
3. [83] Second revert
4. [84] Third Revert
5. [85] Fourth revert introducing a reference that does not support the edit but supports the edit replaced.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:: No link but user is clearly aware of edit warring rules because he posted a report linking myself and a French IP claiming violation of 3RR when none had actually taken place.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Not a violation of 3RR (in 24 hours), but a slow motion edit war with four reverts from ZH8000. For the avoidance of doubt, the French IP has made two reverts, and I have made two reverts (but not from the same IP - dynamic IP addressing). A straight resumption of edit warring to introduce his preferred measurement once the page protection expired.

ZH8000 has posted no discussion on the talk page other than a claim that some non English railway authorities use an obscure measurement of gradient. Whilst that may be true, the measurement is both obsolete and obscure in the English speaking world as was pointed out. The measure is easily mistaken (as I initially did, and apparently the French IP - his edit summary of "(50% max gradient??)" strongly suggests this) to indicate a railway with a 50% gradient (i.e 60 degrees incline!). Also posted a claim that it is not the editor who was bold (B) that made the edit who had to obtain consensus having been reverted, but the editor who reverted the bold claim (the 'R').

The page was protected following the above erroneous 3RR report declaring a content dispute with a declaration to resolve t.he dispute. ZH8000 has just returned to the edit war without any attempt to satisfy the 'D' part of

The reality is that a 'per thousand' measure of gradient is both obscure and obsolete in the English speaking world (and this is the en: Wikipedia). Percent gradient is used for roads, but railways are actually measure using the old 'one in ...' system, but % is understood. It should be noted that 'per thousand' is so obscure that virtually no English character set supports the symbol, and it cannot be found on any keyboard. A search on Google suggests that the symbol ('‰' - copied it) is deprecated because of its potential for confusion with '%' (it is very similar). 86.153.130.41 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

The admins may consider the following:

• The first "original edit" (18 May 2017) is almost one year old! Since then, nobody objected the way to express the data, until now.
• There is an established and a so far non-objected concensus among many railway articles, at least each Swiss railways articles are used to use the
  Gotthard line, Gotthard Base Tunnel, Gotthard Tunnel, Simplon Tunnel, Lötschberg Base Tunnel, Lötschberg Tunnel
  , etc ... just to name a very few.
• There are strong indications, that all undos by any IP was always done by the very same person, despite different IPs by "SRF France" (Special:Contributions/109.26.169.68) and "Vodafone UK"/"BT UK":

• Special:Contributions/148.252.129.216
• Special:Contributions/85.255.237.126
• Special:Contributions/86.153.130.41
• Special:Contributions/85.255.237.171
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.128
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.164

The French IP did not contribute any comments anymore, since the English IP(s) stepped in (– until the English IP will have another business trip to France, probably).

• Both, the SRF France IP as well as the Vodafone UK IP already violated the three-revert-rule by themselves.
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.164 got already blocked (85.255.235.0/24) by @Oshwah: Please check the obove mentioned IPs as well.
• Finally, let's go back to use our time for real work, please.

Thank you for your precious time! -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Declined No recent edits made to article ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Is the 16th and 17th of February 2018 not recent then? 86.174.153.3 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no comments to make concerning the relative merits of this case but would make the following observations.

The articles concerned are very specialist articles and likely to have a very low footfall, so it is not that surprising that an edit goes unchallenged for several months.

The concept of the '‰' symbol is more correctly referred to as the 'promille' (olde English) or the 'permille' (later usage, from the same derivation as 'percent' for the '%' symbol). Both the symbol and the word used to describe it are considered archaic in English usage and I have certainly never seen any paper use it other than one on the discussion of the symbol itself. The terms are so archaic that no (paper) English dictionary published in the last 70 years or so even includes either word (or any variation of spelling). Some on-line dictionaries do include it but they do not appear to agree on the spelling, and is some cases the meaning. I note that the Wikipedia article on the subject notes this as well.

I do not understand the obsession with using an archaic method of expressing gradient when the universally understood '%' gradient precisely expresses the point attempting to be conveyed.

I apologise if this is not the correct venue for this post (I am a relative newcomer), but this is where I found the discussion. Please feel free to move it to a more appropriate page if this is deemed appropriate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Relevant part of above post copied to article talk page. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is useful that a discussion has been started on the article talk, at

per mill notation for the grade is risking a block, until such time as a consensus is found on its use. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let us hope that your faith is not misplaced. It would remiss not to point out that the article was protected with a note that protection would be removed if due consensus was achieved on the talk page. The central plank of this complaint was that ZH8000 had resumed the edit war without making a single contribution to the actual discussion of the edit after the protection was applied. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: HMS Ocean (L12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pam-javelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4.2 edit summary: When an announcement by either the Royal Navy, British M.O.D or the British Government then it can not be confirmed and therefore the sale is "proposed" and not "confirmed".
2. 4.1
3. 3 edit summary: Response to Wolfchild's constant maritime corrections without fact (and with second minor edit) There has been no official announcement from the British Government who own the ship over the proposed sale
4. 2 edit summary: Unless you have official statement from the British Government then STOP REvERTING THE FACTS!
5. 1 edit summary: There has been NO official announcement of the sale by the Royal Navy The British Ministry of Defence or even the British Government - yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

This is their response to the 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90] After Pam-javelin was reverted, they were requested to discuss this on the article talk page, per WP:BRD, multiple times, (twice in edit summaries and again on their talk page) but they refused. I had to initiate the discussion. This is their response on the article talk page: [91] (same combative type response as on their talk page. This was posted after their 3rd revert. I replied, but instead of continuing the discussion, they instead reverted again, for a 4th time in 24 hours. )

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page: [92]

Comments:
The bulk of the content regarding the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil and the supporting refs was not added by me, but cumulatively by several regular editors. Pam-javelin seems to insist that only an announcement from the UK gov’t will confirm the sale. After the second revert, I added an additional source confirming the sale, from the Brazilian, gov’t & military and another source confirming the sale by the UK Defense Journal. This is in addition to the sources already in place. I have encouraged Pam-javelin to read up on Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sourcing, but they continually revert and/or change the content regarding the sale with POV-ish and WP:HOWEVER type additions putting the sale into doubt, and making the article look clunky.

They have been continually difficult to deal with. A couple weeks ago I tried to discuss an issue with on their talk page, but my comments were deleted with the edit summary: Narrow minded Sceptic's rubbish removed. This attitude makes it both difficult to try and have a civil dialogue with this user and, basically impossible to resolve issues. Thank you -

• Still awaiting a response, and in the meantime, the disruption to this page by this editor continues -
  ^theWOLFchild
  21:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• FYI - I have just edited the disputed content. While this editor continually edit-warred, removing sourced content, changing the status of this ship, making more than half-dozen or so edits in the past 24 hrs, insisting that it could only be reported as sold if and when the UK gov't confirmed it as such, it turns our that s simple Google search shows they already have. Numerous sources confirming the announcement of the sale by the UK gov't & MoD. I have updated the page, including four new refs. So, in short, all this disruption was for nothing. This editor was edit-warring and arguing, just for the sake of arguing as they clearly didn't bother to confirm their position. I know several admins are reading this, I just thought you all should know. -
  ^theWOLFchild
  01:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

While this report sits here, this editor has continued to disrupt this article with more edit-warring. A long-tern issue with this editor is they insist on going to various ship articles, and removing any feminine pronouns in reference to the ship. They have been advised to stop this before, as per

• changes "she" to "Ocean" edit summary: Repetition changed
  • reverted by me edit summary: i will again refer you to WP:SHE4SHIPS and again ask you to stop abusing the edit summary feature with deceptive summaries of your edits
• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Fixed grammar, The usual person that loves to add the word "she" to almost every sentence is back again - stop using repetitive wording. You know who you are!!!
  • reverted by user Nick Thorne edit summary: RV - misleading edit summary, no grammar error in referring to ships as "she".
• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Reached" is better than "Managed" as Ocean was a brand new ship at that point so she should not a been "Managing" anything
  • reverted by me edit summary: stop edit-warring - again - why is it you cant take issues to the talk page?)

They had previously changed this very same content before;

• changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Keep article neutral and factual
  • reverted by me edit summary: per MOS:SHIPS & WP:SHE4SHIP

And on other parts of the same article;

• changes "she" to "the ship" edit summary: Too much "she"
• changes "she" to "the ship" edit summary: Too much use of the word "she".

It's clear they intend to continue edit-warring, using false and deceptive edit-summaries, refusing to discuss on any talk page, whether it be article or user, and will continue to disrupt this article, articles like it and the project with their

2nd 4RR vio in 2 days, same article

• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Again, this ship was brand new on trials and the wording should at least be "achieved" instead of "managed" as that describes a ship struggling to reach her top speed

This is the 4th revert of the same content in about 8 hours. This is while there is an open 3RRNB report open, and after administrator NeilN warned them on their talk page to stop. They then continued with yet another change;

• changing "she" to "Ocean" edit summary: Ocean would not have been moored at Greenwich - the correct terminology would have been "positioned" as she was on active military service during the 2012 Games.
  

...with yet another totally deceptive edit summary. How long will this be allowed to continue?
And, should I file a new report for the separate 4RR violation? -

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

Paektu Mountain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "see Paektu Mountain#Names"
2. 04:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "clear"
3. 03:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825565660 by Zanhe (talk): when? look like your edits is first. and please visit the talk page, not here."
4. 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "rv; no consensus the title."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
2. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"

Note: I did not use the template to warn him because Garam is a long-term editor familiar with edit warring rules. He's been to ANI and this noticeboard before.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
2. 04:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"
3. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"

Comments:

• I’ll begin by talking about this. First, I want to revert to "previous edit from conflict" (I'm sorry, I don't know its correct name in English Wikipedia) becuase it is it will prevent more conflicts in article history. And before
  consensus can change, but it hasn’t changed yet in my opinion. So, I wanted to discuss this problem, and I tried to talk to user Zanhe in Talk:Paektu Mountain/Archive 1#Names in the lead (if you look at the talk page, user Zanhe hasn't responded yet.). And as mentioned in talk page, I want user Zanhe to present the references at the present (same reason as Talk:Sea of Japan/FAQ, and per previous discussions in talk page (e.g. Talk:Paektu Mountain#Names). But user Zanhe presented the Ngrams between from 1950 to 2008. So I think user Zanhe didn't provide enough references to support its opinion. Finally, only I thank Manchu language is virtually dead language, it was not one of title until now, and other names is found in Paektu Mountain#Names, for the same reason as first part of Sea of Japan. So if my this edit seems to you like it violates 3RR, really I am sorry I didn't mean that, and I didn't know this edit also violated 3RR. I really wish we could accommodate this problem. And thank you for reading this comments, although I'm not fluent in English. Thanks. --Garam (talk
  ) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• I revert to my edit like Special:PermanentLink/756396030 in 2016. See special:diff/825765920. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As Garam has voluntarily reverted himself, I consider this issue resolved and would like to withdraw my complaint. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Garam is a notorious disputer. [94] [95] [96] It will repeat again soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.62.216.170 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I wasn't aware of Garam's extensive block history outside English wiki. He did change his behaviour this time so I don't want to be vindictive. If he resumes edit warring and/or POV pushing again I'll bring him directly to

WP:ANI, but I hope that won't be necessary. -Zanhe (talk

) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: This IP (with special:diff/826113481 and special:diff/826107181 etc) is one of notorious puppet in Korean Wikipedia. And this IP is blocked IP in Korean Wikipedia because of vandalism and swear words. Please don't mind it. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That might be true, but it does not change the fact that you've been blocked on Korean wiki three times, for a total duration of more than a year. And I just saw that you've also been making tendentious arguments against multiple users on Talk:Chloe Kim and Talk:Korean fried chicken, the same way you did on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Are you trying to make trouble on English wiki after being kicked out of Korean wiki? -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: Near-death experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Perky28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 17:21, 16 February 2018
2. diff 17:35, 16 February 2018
3. diff 19:30, 16 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Near-death_experience#Computers

Comments:

User has an

Reversion 3 was simply the addition of relevant Wikipedia-compliant references and not an attempt to reinsert what Jytdog had rejected. To me, it seemed like a diplomatic compromise, but evidently not. I maintain that Jytdog is obliterating information extremely relevant to this article. His edits coincidentally follow after another editor's use of profanity against my contribution. With regard to COI, I know of Thaler's work and do object to Jytdog's obliteration of Wikipedia-compliant secondary sources quoting it.Perky28 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, Jytdog is attacking credible references, for instance Scientific American and peer-reviewed papers published by Elsevier. Therefore comments such as, "not the kind of reference we look for" is very glib and indicates editorial bias.Perky28 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• This filing has apparently been sufficient to stop the edit warring; we will see if we can work things out on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Being worked out on talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "restored an unexplained removal of a passage supported by cited reference"
2. 13:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826319155 by Joseph2302 (talk) if it's the date formatting you care about it, then only change that!"
3. 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "undid the last 2 edits: if you feel it's vague, then please read the reference and feel free to clarify further based on the information there"
4. 09:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Calendar changes */ added the reason for moving Russian GP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Russia move */ reply"

Comments:

Editor adding and reverting back in changes against current talkpage consensus, and violation of

• Sounds like a nonsensical reporting by Joseph2302: in my original edit, I've added a clearly sourced statement. I've then reverted unexplained deletions of the same: the editors deleting the passage, "Prisonermonkeys" and "Joseph2302", didn't bother to state their reasons in their respective edit summaries – so it clearly looked to me like either vandalism or promoting of their own viewpoints in contradiction of the cited reliable source. In addition, neither of the two had bothered to even mention an ongoing discussion on the subject on the article's talk page (of which I was unaware until I saw the link above). So I would say this nomination is totally bogus, aimed at mostly promoting a specific viewpoint, and suppressing any dissent. cherkash (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• 4 reverts in a short period, and deliberately ignoring a talkpage discussion. Source isn't necessarily reliable, which is exactly what we're trying to gain a consensus on. Which is why your mindless reverting is disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You should provide the reason why the source isn't necessarily reliable and provide a more reliable source that refute the statement made by TASS. Other way it is just

WP:DONTLIKEIT. Corvus tristis (talk

) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reason is explained in talkpage discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What is truly disruptive, Joseph2302 – is your mindless harassing me here: as I stated above, all my edits were done in good faith, and with cited reliable reference; so it was you along with Prisonermonkeys who initiated the "edit warring" and continued to engage in it without any reasonable explanation. It's your aggressive actions that are in bad faith here, not mine. You could simply leave a reasonable edit summary at least once (which you didn't ever do) – there was no mention of your reasons for your own reverts, nor of the allegedly ongoing discussion on the Talk page. All you did was "revert & report" – whereas you were the one aggressively reverting, not me. cherkash (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: All parties warned. Nobody broke 3RR yet, but if there are any more reverts some blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Page: Hate group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wkretz86‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probable logged-out 108.193.192.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)