Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )[edit]

User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever [1] is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently [2] [3] [4][5][6]).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later: [7] [8] [9] [10]

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article [12]).


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.


I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) simply revert.


I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup [25] after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz [26], instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [27] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [28] in addition to my own talkpage [29] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that Hanswar32 has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Erpert: Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Wikipedia, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hanswar32 continues to edit war [30] --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [31]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [32] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [33]. Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the Film Project, DRN, and NPOV. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a {{win}} or {{nom}}, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.
The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year[34]. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at Talk:Brandi_Love#AVN_has_a_conflict_of_interest where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question any of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the San Francisco Chronicle or the Boston Herald with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarifying and summarizing Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our dispute resolution approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring [41]. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that the edit-warring has continued by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([42] [43]) and Scalhotrod ([44] [45]). Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again ([46] [47] [48] [49] [50]). If nothing else, it clearly shows that Hanswar32 has certainly not resolved the dispute with Wolfowitz nor for which Hanswar32 was blocked. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to even begin. Let me start off by declaring that continuously referencing a 1.5 year-old block that occurred within 3 days of account creation and lasted for only 2 hours due to it being immediately lifted after the admin accepted my appeal request is not only irrelevant for the reasons stated, but a despicable sign of desperation to win a losing argument by grasping at straws. You on the other hand had to serve the entire duration of your block for edit-warring after an admin refused your appeal request [51]. What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that Scalhotrod justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time. Is it fun being Ronz? Stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [52] --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ronz: Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
So no explanation for the continued edit-warring then? --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Scalhotrod: Take a look at this troll, will you. Asides from the amusement, how do you suggest I proceed to ward off this minor annoyance/harassment? Hanswar32 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Another revert [53] --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that I'm not going to revert you to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. Hanswar32 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    You restored disputed information, in a BLP of all places, without discussion. That's a revert. That's more edit-warring. It is nice you're adding edit-summaries more often. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    No one has ever disputed the information. It was merely written in an incorrect section under "awards" and I placed it in the correct section under "career". Nice try troll, good luck next time. Oh, and regarding discussion about other issues that were disputed in the past, I've cited above numerous examples where discussion took place and consensus was reached with several editors. You on the other hand are an expert at avoiding discussion as evidenced by your failure to address anything I write above and choose to employ classic trolling/harassing behavior. Amusing, but ultimately pathetic. Hanswar32 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kendoalkaedasincorporate reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: )[edit]

Page
List of Jessie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kendoalkaedasincorporate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
  2. 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
  3. 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
  4. 17:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
  5. 18:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode list */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Jessie episodes. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User persists in adding same unsourced material about a future episode, even after several editors have reverted and warned user about the material being unsourced. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kellie01 and User:Doubletoasted01 reported by User:Xochiztli (Result: )[edit]

Page: Lupita Nyong'o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Kellie01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Doubletoasted01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts by User:Kellie01

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]
  5. [59]

Reverts by

  1. [60]
  2. [61]


User:Kellie01 was warned by User:Cullen328, Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
My warning to User:Doubletoasted01: [63]

Users do not seem interested in discussion. My response to a previous editor on the talk page: [64]

Comments:
As I've said, these two do not seem interested in discussion. The fact is that the actress has explicitly used "Mexican-Kenyan" to describe herself, yet these users believe that by simply swapping established references, without discussion, they can change Wikipedia as they see fit. Judging from the similar edits they have done (and the warnings they have both recieved), it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest they are sock puppets. Xochiztli (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Thank you, Xochiztli. Lupita Nyong'o was born in Mexico and according to the Mexican Constitution, as described in Mexican nationality law, anyone born in Mexico is a Mexican national and citizen, and this status cannot be taken away. Nyong'o embraces her dual Mexican-Kenyan citizenship as described by the reliable sources. Kellie01 is a single purpose editor who edits to impose their own OR interpretation of citizenship and nationality on various articles about notable people who have changed citizenship or have dual citizenship. This editor has been edit warring for weeks to impose their preferred view at Lupita Nyong'o. I hope that this disruption can be brought to a stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:97.90.159.126 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: )[edit]

Page
Kevin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
97.90.159.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  6. 02:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  7. 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  8. 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kevin Trudeau. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:IndianBio reported by User:Brocicle (Result: )[edit]

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported
IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I wasn't sure which page was the correct one to report this user so I apologise if this is the wrong section. User IndianBio has violated the three-revert rule on the page American Horror Story: Hotel. They have reverted three times in the past 24 hours and re-added information under the pretence of another unrelated edit as stated in the edit summary. I tried to take it to the talk page but received no response from the user.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]

All of the above reverts occurred within a 24 hour period. Also please note the last diff under 'filming' is where the information was re-added which, if I read the three-revert rule page correctly counts as a revert.

I notified the user of their violation TWICE on their talk page only to have them remove it both times and being told to "get lost".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] Diff of second edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

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

Comments:

I understand that I also violated the three-revert rule so if there is a punishment on me for that I will accept it without protest. Brocicle (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at Talk:Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute.

Comments:
The editor is engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff [78] is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

North Shoreman is being dishonest in this complaint. He is correct that both IP reverts were mine (I had to find my password again). However, he is wrong about the edit war. He is trying to simply prevent edits he doesn't like. Last time he claimed something similar and was found to be wrong. The backdrop is there is an neutrality dispute associated with the article. I was away for a bit and an editor removed the tag even though the neutrality dispute had not been closed. I readded the tag today. It was removed again so I added it again with a statement that the neutrality dispute was not closed. The neutrality dispute had been archived so I will concede there was some merit to the previous removals. However, I have since reopened it and it is now on the current dispute page THUS it is an active dispute and thus the tag is correct (I did change the date). I resent that NS is attempting to use the rules to avoid a discussion of the article flaws. Regardless, so long as the neutrality dispute is active the tag SHOULD be there so my addition should not be seen as an edit issue.
NS has NOT tried to resolve the issue with the dispute tag on the talk page. This is not an edit war and wasn't the last time NS claimed as such. I would ask that because the Neutrality tag SHOULD be there while a neutrality discussion is in progress no action is taken against me for simply returning the tag. Thank you.Getoverpops (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Accusations of dishonesty are in bad faith and the evidence is clear that Getoverpops violated the 3RR rule and has returned to edit warring. He also admitted here that this was his IP. [79]Scoobydunk (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I admitted the IP address was mine in the paragraph above. Why are you acting like I'm trying to hide it? You improperly removed the tag after I restarted the neutrality dispute. The other editors would be right to say I let the dispute laps and thus the tag should be removed. However once I restarted the dispute on the dispute page it was 100% proper to add the tag again. You were wrong to remove it. Restoring it was the correct thing to do. My accusations against NS are valid. Previously he incorrectly claimed an edit dispute after just 3 edits (he falsely claimed a 4th which was the removal of obvious vandalism). Given that why shouldn't I believe he is doing this in bad faith?Getoverpops (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You were not cleared -- the referral went stale. As the referral makes clear, your edit warring as an IP had caused the article page to be semi-protected and in a separate issue your IP received a 24 hour block. I never claimed more than 3 reverts -- edit warring can occur w/o a violation of 3RR. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale) for details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
NS, Let's get your story straight. First, do you agree that the article is CURRENTLY the subject of a neutrality dispute, the one you linked to above? If yes, then why are we even here?
For the record, the dispute tag was removed while I was off line for a bit (personal reasons). The dispute itself was never resolved but initially I didn't know the dispute had been archived. So when I saw the tag had been removed I added it. Someone removed it. I added it again with a note that the dispute was not closed. After that I saw that the dispute had been archived. At that point I reopened the dispute and, since the dispute was now open again (and is currently on going) I added the dispute tag back to the article. Are you claiming that an article that is the subject of a neutrality dispute should not have a tag? So I added the dispute tag back because the article was now the subject of an active dispute. Scoobydunk removed the tag for a 3rd time despite the fact that at the time he removed it the dispute was reopened and I had posted this in the article talk section. I would argue that adding it the 4th time was undoing vandalism as much as anything. So unless you think the tag currently does not belong on the article, why are we here?Getoverpops (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We're here because you were edit warring which is a violation of WP policy and were warring to the extent of violating the 3RR rule which you've been warned about before.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:Not that it matters in terms of edits (I had mentioned previously that I was out of town for much of the week) but why is consensus needed for a POV tag? The conversation previously went stale because I was away for a period of time. We were actually getting towards a resolution in the archived thread. How was I to handle this case? Since a POV discussion IS active why is it not correct to include the tag? Personally I think this was NS trying to be petty and SD, an editor who had NEVER posted in the thread until I came in (I have no idea how he decided to start trolling my posts - yes, I have examples of his attacks on my posts) just trying to make things difficult for a new editor. Regardless, I would like some explanation as to how you think I should have handled a POV tag removal for a thread that has an active discussion. I think this punishment was uncalled for. I believe it justifies my view that NS is not acting in good faith with regards to the edits in question. Please advise.Getoverpops (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that the first thing Getoverpops did upon return from his 48-hour block was revert the same article again. [80]Scoobydunk (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Report for Edit Waring Article Govind Kumar Singh by single user[edit]

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

User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: Voluntary restriction)[edit]

Page
Mark Ghuneim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wintertanager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]
  4. [84]
  5. [85]
  6. [86]
  7. [87]
  8. [88]


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mark Ghuneim. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
Comments:

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

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

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

Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. 79.97.226.247 talk page. I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.Wintertanager (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
[As I have already pointed out to you], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at Hugo Barra, Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur), Rick Schwartz, and M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page. For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted. Wintertanager (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Against consensus? Um, I think a 'consensus' is the last thing I would use to describe the activity on aforementioned talk pages. Wintertanager (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You can't recognize that you're an outlier and repeatedly editing against consensus of 3 other editors. (Not to mention you mostly write puff PR pieces about tech execs) You need to be blocked or topic-banned from writing about tech executives. The Dissident Aggressor 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Wintertanager's constant removal of the advert and resume tags from Mark Ghuneim (eight times since April 28) looks like an edit war. It is not up to his sole discretion whether these issues have been resolved. In my opinion he can avoid a block for disruptive editing if he will agree not to remove any more quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I will absolutely agree not to remove any quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May and respect the rules of WP, but I am perplexed by this verdict. Knowing this verdict, Dissident Aggressor is now adding tags to pages I have worked on without any reasoning or specificity, which is all I ever asked for. I hope someone will dig deeper into this. Makes me want to throw in the towel to what I had thought were very positive contributions to WP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
He has, since this verdict (5 min ago), tagged the following pages without any explanation in talk. I doubt he knows anything about any of these BLPs, could tell you nothing about the topic of any of these pages. Their only common thread: I've either written or contributed to them.
[Matt Williams]
[Hugo Barra]
Wintertanager (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Voluntary restriction. To avoid a block for disruption Wintertanager has agreed not to remove any more article quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Since this restriction today, these two guys have gone to town on multiple pages I have written - flagging with all kinds of (what I believe are) unfounded tags - again the only common thread being I wrote them. Saddens me. And helpless to do a thing about it. Wintertanager (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And other folks have joined in discussions on the talk pages supporting these edits. The Dissident Aggressor 12:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:100.11.221.199 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )[edit]

Page
John Theodore-Edevu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
100.11.221.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
  2. 19:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC) sock Prof1299 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) ""
  3. 19:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC) sock Prof1299 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) ""
  4. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
  5. 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 "Undid revision 661727495 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  6. 18:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
  7. 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) IP sock 208.54.35.169 ""
  8. 16:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) single-edit sock Prof1299 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "IPsock"
  2. 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Theodore-Edevu. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "COI template"
Comments:

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

  • The sockmaster has also broken 3RR and the report is shown below:
User:MrEditor88 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result
)
Page
John Theodore-Edevu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MrEditor88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TWTW)"
  2. 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Theodore-Edevu. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "COI template"
  2. 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet investigation */ new section"
Comments:

User:Whyedithere reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93]
  2. [94] 2 minutes later
  3. [95] 3 minutes later
  4. [96] 3 minutes later
  5. [97] 3 minutes later
  6. [98] 7 minutes later

Second Page: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [99]

  1. [100]
  2. [101] 3 minutes later
  3. [102] 9 minutes later
  4. [103] 5 minutes later
  5. [104] 4 minutes later
  6. [105] 3 minutes later
  7. [106] 2 minutes later
  8. [107] 2 minutes later

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

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

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

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

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

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

Page
Pelasgians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
GabrielKuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pelasgians. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

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

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

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [NeilN]
  2. [109]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:


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

OP has been blocked. [110] --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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


Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [112]
  2. [113]
  3. [114]
  4. [115]
  5. [116]
  6. [117]
  7. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] [121]

Comments:
User:Leprof 7272 has engage in a revert edit war having reverted back edits which appear to remove sources and also make no great improvement to the WP:BLP article for Nassim Taleb. Editor also reverted all caps comment that telling me to leave off from my personal talkpage [122] after I requested that they not comment on my personal page but rather comment on WP:BLP article talkpage. LoveMonkey 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also say I categorically deny the quality claim made by the complaining editor, and simply ask reviewing editors to compare the state of the citations before [123] and after [124] I did my work to complete citations needing [full citation needed] or [page needed] tags, and to consolidate redundant citations. An immediate effect of the reversions that this and the second complainant made of my extensive work was to reintroduce redundant citations and at least one broken URL. It was this that led me to revert, asking them not to throw baby out with bathwater. Moreover, this initial reversion of theirs were accompanied by no Talk (vs long Talk entry by me, made earlier), and only very limited Edit summaries. Clearly, I stumbled into an article where these editors are not used to anyone coming in and doing bold edits, but these two are not in any way blameless, either vis-a-vis AGF or other policies regarding respect and communication.
Note, finally, in terms of quality. The lede, before my arrival, made mention of "systems" in the paragraph about the antifragility and convex tinkering concepts. That reference was vague, so I went to the journal Gene that was cited—later arguments to the contrary, a source very much within my formal doctoral training and expertise—and derived from that article that the systems that were being referred to were "biological, [and] economic", and I added this to the lede. This is a further example of the material that was removed when these two editors did their team reversions. As an educator, I stand by the quality of my citation editing and my text additions. User:Limit-theorem may be a specialist in finance, but sometimes specialists in their areas cannot see that what they write is confusing or ambiguous. I have nothing to say about the all caps-Talk page issue. I was trying to persuade this uninformed reverting editor to stop and read my edit summaries, so as to not revert good work with the ANI-related matter. I could not get through to him, then, or now. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused responds in detail:
First, the diffs offered are prejudiced, and fair-minded respondents will have to fully review the article Edit history (beginning 7 May, here [125]), comparing to the Talk page, here [126]. As well, the counts being offered are biased. My work was reverted in block; for sake of clarity, I tried making small sequential edits, explaining how each edit improved things (e.g., again removing citations that were redundant between lede and main body, one at a time). Because I did these one at a time, they are being counted against me as multiple reversions, when in fact, they were simply a strenuous attempt to explain what had been done earlier, why the blanket revert by the two complainants was re-introducing citation issues into the article, how my innocuous edits were separate from the ANI issue—that is, the ideal of small, serial, carefully explained edits is being held as nefarious, while the initial blanket reversion made without Talk or substantive Edit history discussion that began the conflict is being held forth as praiseworthy. Please see through this. The long list provided by User:LoveMonkey obscures what actually happened, and my motives.
Second, note that beginning on 7 May, I made a long series of good faith edits, and documented them extensively with a Talk section, and with detailed Edit summaries for each edit. Please note the difference in length of Edit summaries I gave, before the conflict started, and those given by User:LoveMonkey and User:Limit-theorem in their initial, conflict-beginning reversions.
Third, in re: the complaint instruction: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too.": This complainant knows that the dispute has ended, but is pursuing this anyway, for personal reasons unknown.
Fourth, note that the matter at hand is complex, because the edits involved confound two matters—the ANI matter, see here [127], which is about whether Prof Taleb's personal web pages should be used to populate his WP article with biographical information, and separately, the matter of various copyedits that were made to the article that were unrelated to the ANI issues.
Fifth, I acknowledge my reverts were ill-advised, given the parties involved. They were simply aimed at separating these two issues, allowing the valid copyedits to remain in place, while the ANI matter was discussed.
Sixth, I would note that each time I attempted to return solid content to the article, I accompanied my doing so with pleas to the reverting editor(s) in the Edit summary and/or in personal Talk page notes—asking them to slow down, and consider separating the good from the bad. I would further note that no corresponding care was taken by the two editors reverting (LM, filing this complaint, and User:Limit-theorem). That is, I explained what I was doing and why, and in response, they simply reverted without any attempt to engage at any substantive level. I leave it up to these two editors to explain their relationship, and any concertedness of their actions.
Seventh, even though I ceased editing at the article, these two editors continue editing, obfuscating the ANI discussion, and obfuscating this discussion. That is, rather than engage in discussion, the editor's reverted me part and parcel. Then, on being confronted that their baby-with-bathwater reversion resulted in damage to the article, they quickly engaged in further edits to remove any appearance for a basis for my earlier good faith edits. I challenge this as seriously undermining the the good faith of their response to me and my editing.
Eighth and finally, this matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, insofar as I am absenting myself from the article in question, and from contact with these two editors. I am letting the valid copyedits be discarded. The article again contains unnecessary duplication of citations that I had earlier removed, and possible deadlinks that I had replaced. The article again contains repeat appearances of the personal webpage at issue. That is, rather than the good-faith outcome of allowing the removal of the offending self-published BLP citations until the ANI could rule, this complaining editor, and his compatriot, have had their way—the article continues to contain the personal web page citations, and my separate (essentially innocuous) cleanup copyedits went out with the bathwater.
In conclusion, penalize me if you must, even though I will do no further reversions, or edits, at this article. These two editors take advantage of a system that allows first to revert the upper hand, even if their reversion breaks many other rules, including AGF and expectations of communication via Talk.
Cheers, I am at your mercy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Editor Leprof 7272 also made edits to other editors talk pages which appear to violate talk page policy [128] LoveMonkey 00:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This is off point regarding the claim regarding the edit warring. Please submit a new, separate entry regarding this violation, so that we can focus on the behaviour on both sides, if you think it worth the time of yours and others to do so. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It is critical to note that aside from erratic behavior (he went ballistic on my page with uppercase shouting then realized he was angry at the wrong editor) his knowledge of the subject matter related to the page, mostly applied math and math finance, appears to be very limited. Limit-theorem (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As already noted, apology already offered for this, long before the matter escalated. If you are admitting this as the matter motivating this reversion matter, please say you. But one can only apologise so many times.
Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion regarding my credentials. I simply refer those visiting this matter to the last two references you added to the article:
* Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2013). Complements scenario planning by omitting causation. MISSING NAME OF PUBLICATION, VOLUME, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC.
* Mattos-Hall, J. A. (2014). Strategy Under Uncertainty: Open Innovation and Strategic Learning for the Iceland Ocean Cluster (Thesis). MISSING INSTITUTION, URL, ACCESS DATE, ETC.
…and encourage those judging to compare the manner of this, Limit-theorem's most recent sourcing effort, to the citations, before [129] and after [130] I did my recent citation completion and redundancy work. I stand by my scholarly credentials, and find this further criticism—besides being off-point—as simply being laughable, in the face of the clear evidence. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a deeper problem with this editor. The citations were completed (missing parts) 3 hours ago from GS... I fail to understand this confusion. Limit-theorem (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In response I can only say that this is a further example of how you obfuscate matters. Yes, you have fixed these two citations, after I called your attention to them. You did the same earlier in the ANI discussion when I called attention to the fact that your reversions duplicated citations between lede and main body, and introduced a [dead link]. I am sure any point I will raise here, you will hurriedly rush to the article to make it disappear. This does not alter the fact that your two recent citation additions (disappearing issue though they are, at your hands) are still valid examples, still valid comparisons, to the extensive citation cleanup work I did 7 May onward. The only "deeper problem" here is that you are faced with a faculty colleague who is as credentialed as you, as confident as you, and so not cowed by you (though I will grant that you and LM have decidedly more wikilawyering experience, and more apparent time on your hands). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This proposed cessation from editing the article has already taken place. Otherwise, the only place that I am commenting on this matter is here. (Please note date stamps on all entries at Talk pages; those entries were made when I was trying to encourage these two editors to stop the reverting, and separate the ANI issues from the innocuous citation completing and redundancies edits.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I also say, having looked at the careful attention you have paid previous situations, that I look forward to your more full response to the actual points made above. When reverts are initiated without Talk that therefore defy AGF and simple respect, it should be expected that those spending many hours at constructive edits would be put out. Please review the edits that I made, beginning 7 May, and the Talk that was offered in accompaniment, and compare these to the way in which the edits were pro forma rejected without discussion or explanation afterward, by the two complaining editors. As one of your colleagues notes above, regarding another editor that "rarely uses edit summaries," my overheatedness in using all caps in my clearly engaging and persuasion-attempting edit summaries cannot be counted for less than those reverting and offering no or only the most cursory or dismissive Edit summaries. The two complainants are not blameless here.
Again, I ask that my edits and Edit histories be examined, one-by-one, beginning 7 May, alongside Talk entries and dates, before having a look at the response they were given by the complainants, so that an accurate picture of what transpired can be seen. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comment (pro Leprof/pro restraint): Uninvolved in the current question, however (full disclosure) an occasional helper toeditor who works on improving Wikipedia with Leprof here. I have read through some of the general concerns on all sides listed here and will say I have precious little time to get deep into all points. If we all step back from this however and consider Wikipedia pillars and the good of the encyclopedia an editor that is using talk pages to further discussion, understanding and wikipedia goals for articles should not be shown to the rest of the project as having done something worthy of a block or the proposed pseudo/selective block.
I think we all do great harm and damage to Wikipedia by showing the world what happens when people of intellect, accomplishment and forceful ideas are shown that Wikipedia is not a place for them, that their time here will be ultimately wasted and abused. It accelerates a brain drain that can prove fatal to this project's ability to sustain and attract future contributors. All editors should be welcomed especially ones that ask tough questions and seek difficult consensus on talk pages while maintaining civility. Leprof 7272 I have always known as a tough but fair and overly civil editor, nothing in this case shows otherwise. No editor is perfect, we all make mistakes but I have wondered increasingly what type of mistakes Wikipedia wants to sanction more, those made with clear intent to improve and lift up the encyclopedia in a collegial way (like Leprof 7272) or those mistakes that have clear intent to tear down, rip apart and create headaches and time wasting for dozens or hundreds of editors (not Leprof 7272, but happy to answer questions about it). Disagreements happen all the time, what kind of editor do we want on Wikipedia the next time those disagreements happen? I have seen Leprof 7272 in those disagreements before and this editor has done tons for wikipedia that even I would not have lifted a finger for, and given my contributions that is saying something for Leprof 7272 that I can't say for more than 3 or 4 other editors. People that can make this encyclopedia a place we are all proud of sometimes read these current threads and think better of it, polices/guidelines need to be followed and applied equally, sometimes we just need to step back and realize what exactly that means. Thank you for the time. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Specifco is under topic ban. [131] So the same set of rules apply to Specifico as I can contest and possibly edit on articles I have agreed not to, however none of my actions have triggered ARBCOM sanctions where as Specifico editing has. LoveMonkey 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Per his comment above, User:Leprof 7272 is accepting a two-week self-imposed topic ban from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This requires him to stop editing the article, and to cease commenting on the article or on the other editors on all pages of Wikipedia, including noticeboards. He is accepting this in lieu of a block for the 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page
Compulsive overeating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dr.Ted Rothstein DDS PhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
  2. 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
  3. 22:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
  4. 22:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */ Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
  5. 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "A new citation in Further reading: Ref article in Medium.com: Dr.Ted Rothstein dentist/orthodonist encourges dental professionals to offer their services to control compulsive overeating as part of a "healthcare" team."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "3rr warning"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Dental sources */ new section"
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursEdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lukaneville2012 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page
Connor McDavid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lukaneville2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) to 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    1. 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879240 by NeilN (talk)"
    2. 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879490 by NeilN (talk)"
  4. 18:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661879815 by NeilN (talk)"
  5. 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661880267 by NeilN (talk) McDavid is going to be drafted by edmonton"
  6. 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661880745 by DVdm (talk) connor macdavid will be drafted by edmontomn"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
  2. 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
  3. 18:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

I think the editor is willing to stop. [132] --NeilN talk to me 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked before seeing this report. If they post an unblock request agreeing to cease edit warring and acknowledging they understand why they were being reverted I am willing to consider unblocking. Tiptoety talk 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:DVdm (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [133], 25-Apr-2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [134], 27-Apr-2015, reverted by user DVdm
  2. [135], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user Hawkeye7
  3. [136], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user WeijiBaikeBianji
  4. [137], 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user WeijiBaikeBianji
  5. [138], 10-May-2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [139], 29-Apr-2015, user Materialscientist
  2. [140], 10-May-2015, user DVdm

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [141], 29-Apr-2015 on article talk page, user Debresser
  2. User talk:Monochrome Monitor#Definition of who is Jewish in Wikipedia articles

Comments:

I wouldn't really call making the same edit weeks apart "edit warring". Also, the issues I raised weren't resolved at all. He's in the category "Jewish atheists", why not the category "Jewish physicists"? The category "American people of Jewish descent" is inappropriate according to its own definition. "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not adherents of Judaism." He had fully Jewish ancestry, not partial.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If indeed you feel that the issues you raised weren't resolved at all, you should probably set out to resolve them on the talk page. Waiting a few weeks and then coming back to silently revert against (or with absence of) consensus, is i.m.o. edit warring—slow edit warring in this case. - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I understand. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I really didn't want to find you at the drama boards MM. I asked you to leave it be and only go back to the article TP when you had marshalled your arguments. Please can we close this as resolved. MM please take a short break from any Jewish-related material and do some quiet stress free gnoming for a few weeks. I am meant to be your mentor. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned for technical violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR at Israel. The pattern suggests this editor often gets into trouble. Did you have no idea that adding the category 'Jewish physicists' could be controversial? We don't identify people as adherents to a religion against their will. I hope this pattern doesn't continue. People seem to be cutting her some slack on grounds of being new. This can't go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [142]
  2. [143]

Comments:

Getoverpops just returned from a 48 hour block for a 3RR violation. Twice since he returned he has made the exact same reverts that led to the block. The blocking editor stated the following to justify the last block ([144]:

Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:
His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks.
He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited.

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

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

Comment: In my opinion Getoverpops should be blocked for continuing the war. But we could close with no action if he will promise to refrain from restoring the POV tag at Southern strategy between now and June 30. EdJohnston (talk)
I know I'm not in a position to ask but could I ask to amend the terms to "will not add it back without reviewing with you first"? As I asked before, I think NS is trying hard to avoid discussing the issues with the article. Also, can I ask why an active neutrality discussion should not have the tag? I thought that was the standard protocol?Getoverpops (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. I disagree that I am engaged in an edit war as I have made very few changed to the article and most of those changes have stood. Can you explain why it is incorrect to have the neutrality tag given that a discussion is on going? Doesn't having the discussion make the tag correct? Getoverpops (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Under your theory, any single editor would be able to keep a POV tag on an article forever regardless of others' views. All that would be needed is for that person to keep posting regularly to the dispute thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving future discussion to your talk page. Getoverpops (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Result: User:Getoverpops has removed the POV tag to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:I don't believe this is sufficient. Getoverpops removed the POV tag but has now taken to inserting his POV into the article without garnering consensus from the NPOV Noticeboard or finishing dispute resolution. [145] You can also see here that he is changing the lead to suit his POV by asserting a false debate. [146] So instead of edit warring over a tag, he's now just going to bypass the tag/dispute resolution process and insert his POV directly into the article. I believe a topic ban is appropriate since he just attempted to "move the goalposts".Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This has now been resolved per a discussion elsewhere. Getoverpops has agreed to a voluntary topic ban from the Southern strategy on all pages of Wikipedia until June 11. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Onasloga reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [147] (same revert twice in April)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [148] Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table
  2. [149] Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table again
  3. [150] Belatedly realises that the source he is using refers to the new seat totals following by-elections in 2014, but still rei