Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 18 June 2015

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:Tadeusz Nowak reported by User:Widefox (Result: Stale)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

(disruption, battleground)

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Instead, WP:FORUMSHOP at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination) Widefox; talk 21:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check the diff again - which word? I didn't add a word in that diff. Further, it has comments explaining it per MOSDAB! Check WP:MOSDAB - all my edits are in line with that, and the reasoning explicitly explained in the edit diff and on the talk page (which the two of you are only now using). A belated bogus defence of fighting "vandalism" doesn't justify edit warring, and detracts from what appears to be a valid hoax deletion elsewhere. Widefox; talk 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Haminoon, unless you've got a real vandalism diff, suggest you withdraw the accusation promptly. BTW, these exact same (WP:PTM) issues came up by other experienced dab editors at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interracial due to it being an adjective. Widefox; talk 00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

(if referring to User:Haminoon) WP:VAND explicitly states not to accuse editors in good standing as it's a personal attack, and they've provided no diff for any of these multiple accusations. Suggest they strike all these factually incorrect accusations here, at the RfD Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15 and anywhere else. Widefox; talk 04:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

User:Bashirmsaad reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@Pishcal: removed swathes of promotional, resume-style text from this article, but this user is continuing to readd it. I've warned them about WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages is not for resumes, but they continued to revert despite a 3RR warning. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has not attempted to resolve the dispute in any form and has failed to communicate with anyone despite notices / warnings. Pishcal — ♣ 02:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

I think Pishcal (t c) meant that the editor you reported, Bashirmsaad, has failed to communicate. —Darkwind (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, Joseph2302, I was referring to the user reported, not to you. Sorry about the confusion, I suppose "the editor in question" was a bit ambiguous. Pishcal — ♣ 12:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:86.82.44.193 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Erlang (programming language) is a programming language noted for its particular focus on concurrent programming. Concurrent programming is complex and has a substantial literature around it. One of the conceptual means to achieve it is the 'Actor model', published in 1973 by Hewitt. This repeated removal is based on the claim that Erlang does not (contrary to a large number of available sources) use this Actor model. Another well-known and often cited model is CSP, in 1978 by CAR Hoare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" I haven't reverted the latest edit."

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

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

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The fact that you did it four times is exactly the point. A determination of whether you were edit warring or broke the three-revert rule does not take into account who is "right", who is "wrong", or whether your edits are "reasonable", the point is to talk about it rather than repeat the same changes over and over. Furthermore, you should have had this discussion on the article's talk page instead of trying to conduct it through edit summaries and here on the edit warring noticeboard after the edit war occurred. —Darkwind (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:USAismisunderstood reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk page discussion

Comments:

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

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

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

39.53.177.93 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Semi-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Obvious abuse.

This is blanking. Mass blanking can be considered vandalism and doesn't have to be reported to the 3rr noticeboard. But anyways,* Page protected by User:Malcolmxl5.ABCDEFAD_✉ 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: semi-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

I think this is obvious meatpuppetry. @SpyMagician: As I said before, blanking can be considered vandalism and page is protected. You don't need multiple reports of the same page.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 21:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ABCDEFAD. But for the record, my initial report was based on one IP address and then about 2 hours later, a second report was filed based on another, IPv6 address. No harm, no foul but just clarifying my context in reporting. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: can you block the ip under block evasion?--ABCDEFAD_✉ 22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mendess55 reported by User:Zickzack (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Zeybeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendess55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

• Warned Zz, new editors need to be warned of our WP:3RR policy before being reported here. NeilN 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:59.182.176.230 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

Also, see User_talk:NeilN#Kamala_Nehru. --NeilN 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.215.181 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Restoration of unsourced and incorrect content "Erlang's concurrency implementation is the Actor model." Also WP:BITEing new user:86.82.44.193 who is an academic researcher on concurrency theory for twenty years and so knows about Erlang. Erlang is based on the CSP and the occam language not this Actor model. It is even questionable if this "Actor model" deserves all the coverage it is given on Wiki.

Dingley kept restoring this content with no attempt at discussion. 86.82.44.193 started a discussion at the article talk: page but Dingley ignored that and preferred to keep warring.

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

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

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

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

User:KHLrookie reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User made an edit to American football, a good article, without understanding how the inbox classifies what 'worldwide' means (it means it has a 'presence'. As American football is played worldwide, the infobox summary is appropriate). Despite his edit being reverted by two users (myself and BilCat, and urged to take this discussion to the talk page, he has persisted in reverting to versions. His most recent revert did not even include a summary. Toa Nidhiki05 23:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Already blocked)

Page: The Big Bang Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: In clear violation of 3RR.

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

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

Straight off a block for edit warring at this very article , Factchecker is right back at it, with three reverts in ~12 hours. It's not a 3RR violation -- but it is edit-warring per WP:EW, which says quite clearly that a violation can consist of fewer than 3 reverts. Again, it's the very same article where Factchecker's edit-warring led to a week-long block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:2.126.189.105 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Blocked for 31 hours by Crazycomputers. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:RexxS (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Within the space of 24 hours User:Robsinden has four times restored text that was originally deleted by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and subsequently deleted by Montanabw (x2) and Softlavender. The page was then protected in the wrong version by Ritchie333 to stop the edit-war. Robsinden has edit-warred after a warning and against three other editors to force his preferred version into the page. No matter the rights and wrongs of the edit (currently debated at the Talk page), edit-warring is not the means by which editors should be conducting their disputes. This a clear breach of a bright line after a warning and any editor who shows such contempt for our normal behavioural expectations should be sanctioned to provide the solution. That would allow full protection to be lifted from an important guideline page and allow normal editing to resume. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:179.234.74.94 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. @Callmemirela: The edits you reverted did not fall into any of the exceptions to the three-revert rule, and you reverted on this article six times in just over 25 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Markus W. Karner reported by User:Ogress (Result: )

Page

Rohingya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Markus W. Karner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) "I checked the sources (only those which are online). Derek Tonkin, Jacques Leider are not Burmese!"
2. 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667352466 by 58.106.252.62 (talk) please stop this madness over the economist sensationalist article. I work there and I can tell you the allegations are nonsense"
3. 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667333507 by 58.106.252.62 (talk)"
4. 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667279882 by 58.106.230.133 (talk) this sensationalist view is not found in any other page. Please don't push the views to extreme"
5. 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "revert promotion of one source above others"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Zack90 (Result: )

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

Zack90 edit-warred over several related articles, including this one, a few weeks ago. He also did not notify me of this report. (Actually, I warned him, twice, and he responded by reporting me here, indicating a rather egregious lack of good faith.) The edit he's pushing is unsourced and contradicts our other articles and the sources we do have, and what little discussion there was went against him.

Zack90 is currently also edit-warring at Northern Luri language, Southern Luri language, Eastern Baluchi language, Southern Baluchi language, and Western Baluchi language. (He might actually have a case for creating N & S Luri if he would engage in discussion and provide RSs.) — kwami (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with kwami on the potential WP:BOOMERANG issue here. Zack90 is certainly warring and is just continuing to do so without engaging in Talk page discussions to constructively explain their reasoning and attempt to resolve disputes. As noted by EdJohnston, Zack is even warring with an anti-vandal bot. Even when filing a report here, no explanation was given (and kwami was not notified). Please note that some of the same and similar articles were the topic of a recent dispute here on the noticeboard regarding warring by Mjbmr reported by Kwami (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Mjbmr reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)) that was closed as "No violation" despite a WP:3RR violation by Mjbmr, who subsequently said they were retiring, but who has now reappeared as an ally with Zack for the war. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, similar edits and behavior. (Sorry, I may have mixed up the two in my comments above.) When looking for sources to discuss Mjbmr's edits, I discovered that a couple of them might be worthwhile (with some extra work required), but they quit in disgust when they had to actually discuss and justify their edits. Now they're back, but their only editing strategy still appears to be to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Kwamikagami's page blanking at 3 Baluchi language articles is not constructive, especially when he has not explained his edits and there are move discussions in progress in all the 3 pages. Khestwol (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that this "blanking" of "articles" was not a mere out-of-the-blue blanking of longstanding content. Rather, in all three cases, it was a revert of a very recent conversion of a redirect into an article (in the midst of other related disputes). Ordinarily, the burden of justification for a major undiscussed content change (such as creating a new article where there was previously only a redirect) rests on the person who wants to make that change, more than on the person who wants to revert it. Zack90 and Mjbmr don't even seem to be bothering with edit summaries, much less explaining their perspective on Talk pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

It was an unreasonable mess from the start. I simply broke your concerns up into sections to allow them to be answered more clearly. It is a talk page not an article, hence I was trying to discuss your concerns. The first of those was the initial edit, which was not a reversion, you then reverted this twice, so I reverted it back twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473692

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=667475535&oldid=667473938

I have now moved the responses into the threaded discussion section.

It should be noted that User:Mztourist lodged a complaint of OR against my article edit, which a 3rd party moderated and judged it to be a flawed complaint.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward

Mztourist then went WP:FISHING to justify his WP:I just don't like it. He then moved to source reliability, but the sources are used thousands on times in Misplaced Pages already. So he quickly moved back to WP:I just don't like it and began an RFC in the form of a vote, having rejected an opportunity for formal mediating that would actually look at policy.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2

I'm currently having an article edit blocked by cliche mentality with no sound basis in policy. The behaviour displayed has been a disgrace to Misplaced Pages and discourages editors from participating.Z07x10 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A few comments from an involved editor.

First, the reported editor, User:Z07x10, appears to have violated talk page guidelines by refactoring the comments of the reporting editor, User:Mztourist.

Second, the reported editor has altered the wording of an RFC to make it non-neutral by this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AEurofighter_Typhoon&type=revision&diff=667459592&oldid=667458243

Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong.

Fourth, the reported editor has been pushing for eighteen months to add a particular paragraph to Eurofighter Typhoon, and is continuing to forum shop to try to find ways to lock in a particular addition. There is and has been consensus against the addition. Different editors have different reasons for opposing it.

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

How on God's green Earth does asking for a policy-based reason make it non-neutral? I was merely trying to prevent a case of WP:I just don't like it.

By changing the wording of the survey question from one asking whether to include to one asking whether to exclude, you rendered the existing !votes incorrect and meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Third, the reported editor is misrepresenting what I said about synthesis. I said that I thought that the paragraph in question was not synthesis, because it was sourced. The claim that I "judged it to be a flawed complaint" is wrong. - I really mustn't speak English anymore or something. Alleged synthesis. You judged it not to be synthesis. But it wasn't a flawed complaint??????

Where do you get 18 months from?

A little more than eighteen months, actually.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=579486889#Eurofighter_Maximum_Speed

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

There are no reasons other than WP:I just don't like it, hence why the mention of policy in the RFC wording is opposed. That's right the complainants are actually opposing the use of policy! Cliches have ruined this project!Z07x10 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring