Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimharlow99 (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 1 October 2014 (→User:Jimharlow99 reported by User:Lisa (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Truth is the only religion reported by User:McGeddon (Result: )

    Page: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Truth is the only religion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reverting to this version or a similar version of the article. Regular pattern of editor more-or-less reverting to their last preferred version of the article before making any new edits, despite complaints on article and user talk page, and with no explanation beyond that version being "neutral" or having less "advertising". Editor is possibly attempting to insert a particular fact or link without having to justify doing so.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]
    7. [7]
    8. [8]
    9. [9]
    10. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    --McGeddon (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Truth is the only religion (talk · contribs) has been making large reverts to this article since the beginning of September. I see removal of more than 1,000 bytes from the article on Sept 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. I recommend a block unless they will agree to stop. This article is under probation due to a 2007 Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think before you over react to this complaint, you need to look closely at the problems in the topic before I started editing it and take into consideration that I have gone to great lengths to incorporate all of the subsequent edits by other editors.
    The problems are serious, as I have pointed out, e.g. self-published material, links to blogspot, numerous insignificant links advertising the religion's retreat centres etc.
    The problem is, the topic is being control by followers of the religion who keep reverting to their version.
    By working together, the BK editors are able to avoid any one of them being accused of 3RR, although they are all reverting to their same version.
    1. Changeisconstant [13]
    2. GreyWinterOwl [14]
    3. Danh108 [15]
    There are many more identical reversions of any changes, even changes inline with the rules.
    As far as the accusation that I have not discussed the changes, that is not true. I have substantiated all of the changes and largely they have been accepted by others, and that the previous version not only read like an advert but contained numerous factual errors. For example, see here [16].
    It seems to me that what is happening here is that a group of followers are working together to protect their religion's topic page and provoking such a conflict by continually reverting to a version that includes many changes which were not discussed when they were made.
    It's worth pointing out that Brahma Kumari adherents are being coordinated off Wikipedia to work on and protect topics relating to their religion and working together as a group, e.g. Danh108, Changeisconstant, GreyWinterOwl.
    I hope this clarifies matters. It's also worth pointing out that the BKs did not re-write the topic as it was by discussing it and so the accusation would seem to be unfairly and inaccurately onesided. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to work out what the impressive list of 10 differences is supposed to show but it is too difficult or unclear to me. What is clear is that I have continued to work cleaning up the topic and combining neutral or beneficial textual edits by other users. I think it would be more usual to consider where the topic started and where it is now, and I would argue where it is now is a better foundation for development.
    For example, from here [17] to here [18] (differences [19]). I think you will agree it is cleaner and more according to the rules. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Althouth this editor claims that 3 "BK editors" are reverting him, the reality is that 7 editors have already reverted his same mass deletion. Just for the record, I don´t like being called a "BK", nor to be referred to as "they" together with 2 editors to whom I never spoke outside wiki nor did I ever participate of any "team" or "plan" involving them. Although I am constantly insulted by this editor, I still try to work with him on the talk page [20], but his behavior never changes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to make broad accusations like "constantly insulted", you should really support them with evidence so others can decide how true they are. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Three more reverts since this report was raised: [21], [22], [23]. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest 2 identical reverts today are of the friendly long-term Wikipedians who are giving their time to try and help the page out [24],[25]. The edit summary after reverting User:McGeddon was just 'add belief' - doesn't even vaguely reflect what the User is actually changing. Danh108 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence of your constant insults are your constant violations of WP:WIAPA and WP:TPG by constantly making personal remarks that WP:WIAPA characterizes as "personal attacks", specially because there is not a single evidence of them. I don't think I need to be more specific than that, each one just needs to read your posts on talk pages and noticeboards, including this one, read the guidelines and decide for themselves. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.33.31.11 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: semi)

    Page: Exorcism of Roland Doe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 70.33.31.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]

    And since this report has been filed:

    1. [31]
    2. [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe#Cooper.2FEpperson_source

    Comments:
    User has been blocked before for unsourced (and possibly mis-sourced) POV pushing before. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.18.93.134 and User:RichardWilcox20 reported by User:217.115.113.216 (Result: )

    Page: Inversion therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:86.18.93.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:RichardWilcox20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627143503

    Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627099336

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&action=history

    User at IP 86.18.93.134 also using username RichardWilcox20 repeatedly vandalizes the Inversion Therapy and Inversion Tables pages with irrelevant links to his personal affiliate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.113.216 (talk • contribs)

    User:172.56.3.194 reported by User:EricSerge (Result: block/prot)

    Page
    Louis Freeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    172.56.3.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627364362 Adding well-sourced factual details about a persons support of an organization is not 'vandalism'."
    2. 22:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627328981; removals are being made for political purposes based on flimsy rationales."
    3. 21:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627305407; improved NPOV, sources; edits are largely copy/paste from an accepted modification by editing user. Included link to video clearly establishing material support pre-FTO delisting. Removed accurate but leading section."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Same poorly sourced questionable material added to BLPs of Newt Gingrich, Tom Ridge, and Rudy Giuliani. EricSerge (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I gave the user 3RR warnings on their talk page following their most recent edits. They have not reverted since the warnings, and appear to be making a good faith effort to learn Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding content.
    The user then started a discussion on my talk page at User talk:Barek#edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK, where they indicated that they were not previously aware of WP:3RR. I suggested that they use the article talk page and review WP:DR. The user indicated that they will pursue the talk page options going forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, now they are back edit warring at Rudy Giuliani as 172.56.2.190. EricSerge (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this can be closed. The more I examine the issue, the more it seems to be a BLP issue. I will take this to the WP:BLPN. EricSerge (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And it continues over at Tom Ridge. EricSerge (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both IP addresses used have been blocked and the targeted articles semi-protected for blatant BLP violations. Ping me or the appropriate noticeboard if anything crops up elsewhere. Maybe the RfC can find a policy-compliant way to include some material. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lonepine17 reported by User:Dolescum (Result: )

    Page: West Bloomfield Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lonepine17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Initial addition of content by Lonepine17

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revert 1
    2. Revert 2
    3. Revert 3
    4. Revert 4
    5. Revert 5
    6. Revert 6

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Did my best to write a polite notice informing the user they were edit warring and asking them to engage in discussion

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: John from Idegon had already attempted to open discussion with Lonepine17, user disinterested.

    Comments:

    Lonepine17 is also using their edit summaries to assert that other users are "paid" "internet hacks" in breach of civility policies and suggesting a battleground mentality.
    I am at a loss as to what to do other than report this user. Apologies if I have made errors here, this is my first time filing a report on EWN. Dolescum (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Update to add latest revert by Lonepine17, despite having been informed of the report here. Dolescum (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gaba p reported by User:Froglich (Result: )

    Page: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gaba p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: (see commentary below)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] (All are identical.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (non-existent as user Gaba (how he signs himself, but actually "Gaba p") was the instigator; see below)

    Comments: The four edits listed above do not by-definition breach 3RR, and would normally not be considered wp:gaming the system either given they stretch to 48 hours, but other circumstances (leading to a maliciously-applied 24hr block of myself) compel me to report this abusive member.

    BACKGROUND:

    1) Beginning on August 29, there was, in the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, an attempt by several editors to prevent inclusion of a new peer-reviewed paper supporting aspects of the hypothesis. Arriving on the scene on Sept. 14, I supported inclusion because the paper (Kennet, 2014) was RS-sourced in a prestigious journal, and felt the "refuted" wording previously present in the article was not an accurate description. While pro/anti tallies are close and there have been sporadic attempts at reversion, inclusion has had consensus.

    2) User Gaba( p) arrived on the 25th (he has no prior history of editing the article within viewable 500 edit history stretching back to January 2009), and began reverting to remove the Kennet reference and restore the "refuted" language in the lead of the article. Despite lacking consensus and being a late-arrival, he began admonishing (in his edit commentaries) other editors to explain themselves on the Talk page. (A thread entitled "Continued Removal of Primary References" already existed on the TP; Gaba's last contribution to it, and to the entire TP, dates from last February.)

    3) On the 26th, Gaba initiated discussion on my user page (not the Dryas article TP, mind you), again admonishing me to open a topic on the Dryas TP and to revert my edits. (I recommend reading the link in the last sentence now.) Concluding that he was behaving disingenuously after failing to achieve consensus and noting his unwillingness to do what he demanded of other editors (i.e., comment on the TP), I declined. I also told him that I thought he'd followed me over from the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. I have reason to conclude at this point that this activity was to "set me up"/game-the-system to justify a waiting-in-the-wings admin cohort to levy a malicious block (see 5).

    4) On 13:59, 27 September 2014, Gaba accused me of edit-warring on my talk page despite my last three edits to the Dryas article at that point being on the 19th, 25th and 26th. In no way, shape or form do three edits over a seven-day period to support consensus violate 3RR or constitute edit-warring (and since Gaba is not a "noob", I am quite sure that he was well aware of this). Defending himself from my stalking charge, he also maintained"...the TP proves I've been following the article for months..." (As noted previously, the TP shows no activity on his part for half a year.)

    5) On 21:07, 27 September 2014, less than half a day after Gaba's accusation of edit-warring (and during which period of time from 13:59 to 21:07) I made *no* edits to the Dryas article, the admin 2over0 parachuted in out of the blue to levy a 24hr block on me. Note that no formal accusations (such as this one here) were performed (or if they have, I was not notified per regular procedure).

    Conclusion: I would like a general block of greater-than-24hrs duration applied to Gaba for gaming the system and serial dishonesty. I want the malicious block applied to me stricken from the record. Lastly, I would like this whole sordid mess, apparently involving at least one editor and at least one admin, investigated for wolf-pack tactics pursuant to a campaign of intimidation of editors contributing to the Dryas article as well as other "climate change topics". (I can't fathom what the Dryas article has to do with contemporary climate wrangling, but it was Gaba's "Freudian slip" to mention it on my TP, so I am positing it here.)--Froglich (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ____ COMMENTARY _____
    Not sure why you would think mentioning "climate change topics" is a "Freudian slip". In any case, here's how climate change and the impact connect if you are really interested: Younger_Dryas#Impact_hypothesis. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By conflating my allusion to "contemporary climate wrangling" (i.e., an obvious reference to anthropogenic global-warming theory) with the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis (which you admonish me to read as if that weren't the very article under discussion), I am left with concluding you are either deliberating insulting everyone's intelligence here, or are you actually completely clueless.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Froglich, the article I pointed you to is Younger Dryas the geological period, obviously connected to the "climate change topic" (which is precisely what I said). This is not the same article as Younger Dryas impact hypothesis as you appear to be implying above. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sticking with my theory you stalked me over from the Tyson article. Your explanation of having been "following the article for months" while inexplicably sitting on your hands without a word on the TP since February or a single edit whatsoever in the article prior to late September ...rings hollow.--Froglich (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh-uh. So now that you've finally understood that the article is indeed related to climate change, as I told you before numerous times, and even after I presented the diff showing you I've been following it since last February, not only do you not apologize but instead are doubling down on your bad faith accusation that I followed you into the article a few days ago. Gaba (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume good faith on the part of editors when they're not leading with false accusations.--Froglich (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The request that you assume good faith has long passed, since you clearly will not. You have chosen to keep accusing me of stalking you after I showed I've been following the article since the beginning of the year, you've been corrected on the relation between the article and climate change after commenting you couldn't "fathom" their relation (which you called a "freudian slip" on my part) and you've apologized for neither accusations (among many others, ie: "serial dishonesty", "wolf-pack tactics", etc). I've remained WP:CIVIL this whole time and I'm requesting you cease your attacks please. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You had no contributions to the article's TP since last February and no edits whatever to the article itself as far back as 2009. While the content of the article seesawed, the consensus of the TP by September 1 was to include the new sources -- given a lack of response on the TP, it is only natural to expect that eventually the article will come to reflect most recent argumentation on the TP. In any event, the article didn't become your baby to own until the 25th of September, when you made your first appearance less than a week after my first appearance, during which time we had both been active in the Tyson article. -- I will stipulate that your explanation is possible if you will stipulate that my conclusion (stalking) is the logical one given that sequence.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Me having no contributions to the TP since February means absolutely nothing. For example, other that your comment two days ago you have no contributions to the TP since the article was created in 2008.
    "the consensus of the TP by September 1 was to include the new sources" except it was absolutely not. If you believe this talk page points to any consensus whatsoever to include anything, you either haven't bothered to read the TP or do not understand what consensus means. The state of the article by Sep 1 BTW was the stable one and it remained that way until you changed it two weeks later after no TP contribution whatsoever (since 2008 I might add).
    I made my "first appearance" in the article 7 months ago as I have shown over and over again. Your "conclusion" is only the bad faith and combative one, which is no wonder seeing how you behave towards other editors. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Obfuscation. The "article" is the article -- not its associated TP. You had no prior edit presence in the article prior to September 25. This is *easily* ascertained by bring up its history, setting maximum range of 500 edits (going back to 2009), selecting a search term to highlight ("Gaba" in this case), and performing a simple word find on the page. (Full link: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&offset=&limit=500&action=history ) ....You do not appear before 9/25.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All my reverts on that article were done following WP:BRD attempting to restore the consensus stable version of late August. Since then, editors Froglich and Bkobres have been pushing to insert basically the same edit into the article ([39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]) with editors William M. Connolley, SkepticalRaptor and myself reverting back to the stable version. All my reverts mention explicitly in the summary the need that either of them follow WP:BRD and open a relevant section at the talk page to discuss the issue, which neither did. The section was finally opened by myself (now removed by Froglich) after the latest revert pushing the edit into the article (currently up) by Bkobres.
    Froglich's last revert before he was blocked yesterday was made with a summary of "Blarg", pointing clearly to his non-willingness to discuss the matter in the talk page or even stating a reason of any kind. By the way, here is my attempt at resolving the matter with Froglich in his talk page after that reversal. His bad faith accusations of me following him to the article in the last few days are easily demonstrated to be false seeing that I commented on it back in February. He appears to be unable to comprehend that "consensus" isn't who gets to push an edit more but something that needs to be achieved through talk page discussion. Let me know if anything is unclear and I'll gladly expand on int. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your serial hypocrisy and dishonesty continue, but this time in front of a wider audience. At no point recently (within half a year) have you followed your own demands of other editors. Your pace of reversion is greater, you had nothing to say on the TP since the inclusion of Kennet prior to this incident (and it's obvious to see why you didn't given the paper was properly cited to an RS), and you accused others of edit-warring for engaging in less of the same behavior you yourself were happily wallowing in.--Froglich (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, what demands have I not followed? To adhere to WP:BRD? Froglich, I believe I've told you this half a dozen times now: when you make an edit to an article and it gets reverted, you do not revert back as you did several times; that is considered edit-warring. What you do after your Bold edit was Reversed is Discuss the issue in the talk page opening a new section to do so, i.e: WP:BRD. In each of my reversals I urged you (and Bkobres) to follow WP:BRD and discuss the matter in the TP before continuing reverting, something neither of you did (the obvious proof of that is that the current version of the article is the one Bkobres' pushed with his last edit). I'm not sure I could make the bold, revert, discuss process any more clear than this. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have been repeatedly reminded, the matter had already been discussed on the Dryas talk page in the thread "Continued Removal of Primary References". You should remember it, not only due to that fact that your one and only submission to the TP (prior to yesterday) was to that very thread, but also because of your claim (made on my TP) to have "been following the article for months".
    Given your lacking consensus (established by cessation of response from the "anti-Kennet" faction, as I'll call them, in the aforementioned "Continued Removal of Primary References" thread), if you truly believed it was incumbent upon editors to jump through those BRD hoops when their bold edits were reverted, you would have jumped through them yourself. -- But you did not do so, and I have little reason at this point to believe your proffering of BRD rationales were anything other than a lot of specious gobbledegook on your part being tossed out to justify punitive action from a complicit admin. To wit: "gaming the system". --Froglich (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter had in fact not been discussed in the TP, at least not by you. The comment made by Bkobres on Aug 31 was done after his revert against WP:BRD, to which SkepticalRaptor responded. At that point the state of the article was the stable one. Two weeks later you move in and revert to the non consensus version (adding two more edits in line with the revert) which gets immediately reverted. At that precise point the cycle was Bold edit + Revert. The next step by you should have been Discuss as per WP:BRD (eleventh time mentioned). Instead of going to the talk page what you did was revert, then revert, and revert again. There is no contribution made to the issue by you in the talk page of the article until yesterday. You asking me to "jump through those BRD hoops" is illogical since it was not me who made an edit away from the consensus stable version and was reverted, it was you. Thus the onus was and still is on you to discuss the matter in the TP and not revert anymore and the same goes for Bkobres, who is doing pretty much the same thing you did. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have named your "complicit Admin" if you are going to continue making personal attacks - User:2over0. After all, you asked in your unblock request that he be desysopped:"the administrator levying the block for that rationale is, at the best assessment, incompetent for failing to check before levying the block. I want this malicious block not only lifted but stricken from the record (as would be revealed when following the links below either now or in the future), and I want the obviously guilty punished for this blatant abuse of authority. Given the repellent behavior of my accusers, I request the tables be turned and that topic bans be handed out to those responsible, and that 2over0's administrator privileges be revoked." Are you still asking for the following: To third-party administrators: I am requesting that the user Gaba be disciplined in the following manner: 1) a three-month general block for 3RR "gaming the system" and for lying to administrators by accusing other editors of edit-warring when their pace of reversion is slower than his own, and 2) a one-year topic ban on "climate related" articles, to also include the Neil deGrasse Tyson article and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article.? And just for info, no one has blocks removed from the record, even those made accidentally (it happened to me but it can't be removed). Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, if you're going to weigh in, at least do the heavy lifting. (IOW, read everything first; which, if you do, you'll see that 2over0 is mentioned.) Onlookers will observe that Doug was giggling it up on 2over0's user TP yesterday, with neither one of them apparently the least concerned over Gaba's indiscretions (which are, as detailed above, worse than anything I was accused of and punished for). As far as whether "accidental" (malicious) blocks can be removed, I wouldn't know. (If they can't be, it would be a handy way of smearing an editor's permanent record, no? -- I would submit that such may have indeed been precisely the objective, and hence why deeper examination should be undertaken by non-partisan admins [which you are not] beyond dropping a temporary block on Gaba.)--Froglich (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller, yellow text on a red background is really annoying. Please don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)~~@Guy Macon: It is. I never user color. As I said, that's the color he used on his talk page. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, missed 2over's mention in your long screed, should have searched. I see once again though a personal attack. Unless you can prove these allegations you probably should be blocked for making them. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what investigations are for, Doug; the in-part purpose of this foray being to request one. But your giddy excitement in hoping to secure sentence before the hearing is duly noted, as is your refusal to address the Gaba matter at all. (That's how real ad homina works, of course; changing the subject.)--Froglich (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by onlooker Disclaimer, Gaba and I periodically interact well in climate articles

    (A) This vomitous mass appears to be a run-of-the-mill content disputed in which one side (Froglich) chose to assail the other party instead of using established WP:Dispute resolution procedures to reach WP:Consensus
    (B) SUGGESTION, 1. Extend Froglich's block for personal attacks and disruption 2. Refuse action on claim Gaba "lied" to admins with instruction that if Froglich wishes he's free to file separate ANI on that specific point so long as he provides diffs to the evidence supporting these extraordinary claims, and cautioning that a claim based on further vomitous hype instead of clear evidence may result in further block extension per WP:BOOMERANG.
    Overall impression.... yawn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I might have taken away a different impression if this complaint had been made calmly with DIFFs and omitting the emotion. Not sure. Anyone can seek page protection and initiate the DR process, after all, and it doesn't appear that Gaba did that either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that I should have seeked page protection or initiate a dispute resolution process after seeing neither Froglich nor Bkobres were willing to either do so or even stop their reverting long enough to discuss the matter in the TP as instructed by WP:BRD. I take full responsibility for that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to (A): "appears to be" being shorthand for "I'm not going to bother to read it all, so I'll just guess what's going on." Well, thanks for your contribution, Sir! ...As stated repeatedly, it is Gaba who did not bother to seek consensus before embarking on a reversion campaign.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to (B): Yes, by all means, let's extend sanctions for non-existent "personal attacks" (which we're not even going to bother nebulously defining) and "disruption" (which must refer to my three edits in seven days in support of consensus as opposed to Gaba's four in two against it). Ridiculous.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypocrisy and fantasy. You don't have consensus in the Dryas article. Prior to this incident, the "anti-Kennet" side had ceased responding in the relevant TP thread for a couple weeks before my first edit (in support of then-established consensus) in the article in mid-September. You couldn't wrest control of the article back even with my absence (due to the recent 24hr block). You had no presence on the TP since last February.. You had yourself not undertaken one single action you "requested" of other editors. But now you're pretending to be accommodating and conciliatory when previously you were anything but.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See my last comment on consensus and WP:BRD. I don't think it can be made any more clear than that. You edit-warred and so did Bkobres. If there's no extra input in the next few days from other editors I'm starting a DR process. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To keep pushing this narrative that you ever enjoyed consensus is to tell a bald-faced lie. I also observe that this is now the second time you have falsely accused Bkobres of edit-warring for perfectly normal, indeed expected, behavior of an editor (restoring an article to consensus).--Froglich (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I had consensus (I hardly could since I never added content to the article) I said you did not which is easily seen just looking at the history of the article: you made an edit, you were reverted (not by me mind you) and immediately you reverted back instead of going to the TP; that alone constitutes edit-warring and is obviously against WP:BRD (not even counting your next two reverts [48][49], the last one with a summary of "Blarg"). Can't be made any simpler.
    Froglich: you've called me a liar among many other things numerous times now and I've remained civil. I'm now politely requesting you stop. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You falsely accused two others of edit-warring. Retract your false accusations, and we're good.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If anybody should retract anything here it is you Froglich. I remind you that you were blocked precisely for edit warring so it is not me the only one who feels that way. Gaba (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that said malicious 24hr block has already been mentioned top, front and center by me by way of establishing background to this whole sordid mess, you are contributing absolutely nothing new by recycling the smear.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to closing admin

    (A)Goal is producing good articles and sanctions are for prevention not punishment
    (B)Yesterday Gaba posted 4-point criticism of the edit at article talk (Froglich hasn't replied yet)
    (C)No obvious purpose served by leaving this open
    (D)Suggest closing with warning to Gaba and instructing parties who feel further intervention will truly improve wikipedia file a separate complaint based on whatever the remaining behavior gripe(s) might be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Onlookers note that the preceding urge to quick closure is being made by a Gaba partisan with a history of editing the Dryas impact article and its associated TP.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DexDor reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

    Comments:

    • How clearly this proves that it takes two to tango. I have no suggestion for the patrolling admin. An equitable long-term solution would be agreement on the talk page, but that won't happen as long as it's just these two editors going at it. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DSeeB reported by Muckrkr (Result: )

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [57]
    2. 19:33, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627450775 by Muckrkr (talk))
    3. 19:31, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-46)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627450552 by Muckrkr (talk))
    4. 19:30, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627449699 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    5. 19:29, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627448650 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    6. 19:06, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627447387 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    7. 19:05, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+58)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627447518 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    8. 18:44, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440318 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    9. 18:43, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+58)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440637 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    10. 18:42, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+481)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440839 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    11. 16:43, 27 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627272997 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
    12. 16:43, 27 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627274481 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))

    It appears this user might be an employee of EidoseMedia. He created the page (which has been labeled as reading more like advertising than an encyclopedia) and quick reverses any effort to change the entry to a more neutral PoV or include references to persistent criticism about the company's software.

    User:Acorn2014 reported by Muckrkr (Result: )

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EidosMedia&oldid=627456567
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EidosMedia&oldid=627454700

    It appears this user might be an employee of EidoseMedia. The editor recently reversed multiple attempts to change the article to a more neutral PoV or include references to persistent criticism about the company's software. The editor has never touched any other Wikipedia entries.

    User:Montanabw reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Article Protected)

    Page
    John Walsh (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Montanabw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Restoring proper chronological order to section. No need for separate heading per neutral assessment"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      1. 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* 2014 election */ Restore deleted material and fix chronological order, which now makes no sense after the move. Putting due weight, no need for every gory detail yet"
      2. 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "No need for one-sentence section, moving personal life into early life and education section"
    3. 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Allegations of plagiarism */ Prior consensus was that there was no need for independent section heading, you want it in campaign, fine, not that important"
    4. 03:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 627456047 by Montanabw (talk): Groovy, but burden is on the person seeking the changes. And this was a firmly established consensus. (TW)"
    5. 20:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 627171476 by Msnicki (talk): This was edit-warred about earlier and it was determined not to handle it this way. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:
    • I'm one of the editors who weighed in on the talk page. I don't wish to tease out all the details of the diffs above; I'll leave that to the poor admin who's running the board. I will note, however, that this is a BLP and so we should tread carefully. Discussion on the talk page is ongoing, and one of the biggest bones of contention is whether that plagiarism section should be a separate section. I think not, and a couple of editors agree with me, but it's hardly settled of course. Good luck figuring this out. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Msnicki and others wishing to put WP:UNDUE weight on an ongoing plagiarism investigation are trying for another bite at the apple that they lost the last time. There is about a five to two consensus against these changes that Msnicki seeks. Montanabw(talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by NAEG Setting aside all fingerpointing, are ya'll in agreement that the disputed text is at least in compliance with WP:WELLKNOWN. If there is also debate over WELLKNOWN compliance, then in my mind that's the key issue to resolve first. If the text doesn't comport to WELLKNOWN then it is a BLP violation regardless of any other hesaid/shesaid and must be omitted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The allegations of plagiarism are well-known. Walsh has dropped out of the US Senate race due to the "distraction" it caused and a replacement candidate has been selected. The investigation is ongoing and no one has said anything one way or the other, as you can see here. Montanabw(talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonresponsive. Please repeat my question, and then please try to provide an answer. The underlying facts has nothing to do with my question, which is entirely about wikipedia process. Do the two sides agree the disputed text - whether it is kept or omitted - at least complies with WP:WELLKNOWN? That should be a simple yes/no. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is closed, go to the article talk page for further discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [58]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Original edit deleting cited material
    2. 1st revert
    3. 2nd revert
    4. 3rd revert

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A - discussed on user page.] Also abuse and incivility here as discussion was deleted with the edit summary "revert anonymous coward".

    Comments: This is yet another slow motion edit war involving Wtshymanski. In this case, the article contains a statement about the use of oil that has a low sulphur content compared with conventional oil. The paragraph is backed by a reference [60] which is a link to a scientific paper discussing both the problems caused by sulphur and the solutions. The paper itself is impecably referenced.

    In Wtshymanski's characteristic manner, he has decided that the paper (and the article paragraph is wrong) and deleted the entire paragraph, with the terse edit summary "just wrong". No evidence provided - nothing.

    His first revert (of the deletion of the material) just says "competence required". Without any backing references or evidence, any personal knowledge that Wtshymanski thinks he possesses can only qualify as original research.

    When this is pointed out, his second revert changes tack and he tries to claim that the paper is an advertisement or brochure, but introduces his third tack ("... ad brochure is talking about mineral oil; x is not an alternative to x, though there's no supporting Wikipedia policy for that.) The reference is clearly a referenced scientific report and not an advertisement or brochure. It is produced by a company making transformer oil, but I would regard their Senior Technical Services Adviser to be a more reliable source than Wtshymanski - especially when he cannot produce references to back his position.

    His third revert has dropped the advert/brochure angle and he is now claiming that "mineral oil is not an alternative to mineral oil ...". While true, that is not what the subject paragraph is about. It is about mineral oil that has been processed to remove the sulphur making it different.

    This tendentious editing is a continuation of a long line of such editing and was the subject of a Request for comment (which I do not know how to find). It was stated in that RfC by a respected editor (Guy Macon), that it was easy to tell when Wtshymanski was edit warring for the sake of it hs he produces zero references to back up his editing, and that is certainly the case here. This behaviour also demonstrates that Wtshymanski has still not taken on board the outcome of that RfC.

    This is not 3RR, but it is an edit war where an editor is insisting that we accept his totally unreferenced original research over a scientific paper from a respected company in the industry. And he is determined to hammer in his original research.

    85.255.233.193 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mineral oil is not an alternative to mineral oil. Encyclopedia articles ought not to contain absurd contradictions. The IP address user is getting a lot of excitement out of this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said many times about Wtshymanski, when he gets into these fights (which he does a lot) he is often in the right about the actual content. I would estimate that he is on the right side of the content dispute 80% to 90% of the time. I haven't looked at the content issue here, but I expect those percentages to hold. That being said, whether he is right or just thinks he is right, his behavior is often extremely distressing to other editors. To complicate matters, Wtshymanski usually stays within the letter of Wikipedia's behavioral rules, standing on the line with his toes hanging over, while his less-experienced opponents often cross the line and (rightly) experience WP:BOOMERANG. A good example is this personal attack by 85.255.233.26[61] and 85.255.233.26's own three reverts.[62][63][64]
    My advice is to caution both parties about edit warring, warn them both that statements like "anonymous coward" and "most postage stamps are pre-printed with the sum total of your knowledge on the back" are unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, advise the IP to bring up the sourcing issue at WP:RSNB, and close this without any blocks or other sanctions. In particular, I see no need for page protection, because neither party is likely to edit war in the near future. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would say that the result, as ever, comes down against the IP editor no matter how right he may be. Googling 'low sulphur transformer oil' only brings up 39,000 odd hits, much of it from respected academic sources (I.e. not manufacturers). One of the first papers is [eprints.soton.ac.uk/273124/ this] from a respected university. 85.255.235.66 (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with you editing as an IP. ANI does not hand down rulings on article content disputes. ANI is for dealing with user behavior, and both of you behaved badly, engaging in an edit war (three reverts each) and some rather nasty incivility. Please go to WP:DRR and chose an appropriate venue for dealing with your article content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.74.195.7 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: article protected, IP blocked)

    Page
    List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    109.74.195.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627572946 by St170e (talk) Please stop disrupting knowledge."
    2. 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627569522 by Taivo (talk) Where do you people find inspiration for all the sophism? Sounds nuts. Britannica is the final word on this, I'm afraid."
    3. 17:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627568543 by Tymon.r (talk) They were not "good faith" they were good ole truth."
    4. 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627567922 by McSly (talk) No need for consensus on Britannica, whatever you meant by "consensus" (but it does sound like dictatorship wrapped up in color, I grant you that)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on List of sovereign states */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP hasn't made any attempt to join the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article semi-protected by MusikAnimal, IP blocked for...well, it all boils down to trolling (there's more in the history, from other IPs). DoRD, does looking at the IP's block log jog your memory, and do you feel the need to add any comments here or any days to the block length? Drmies (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexander Domanda reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

    Page
    Homophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins *Will the jerk who keeps changing my correction stop!!!!! Homos means same and hetero means the other in Greek I have 2 univ. degrees Gk and Latin."
    2. 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
    3. 18:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */ Jerk"
    4. 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */ You definte phobia brom phobos but not HOMOS from the SAME vs. HETERO which means the other of 2 or opposite. Complete the definition."
    5. 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Homophobia. (TW)"
    2. 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Homophobia */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origin of word */ new section"
    2. 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Meaning of homophobia */"
    Comments:

    User:Winkelvi reported by User:How hot is the sun? (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Reverted on 01:03, 29 September 2014
    2. Reverted on 04:12, 29 September 2014
    3. Reverted on 19:41, 29 September 2014
    4. Reverted on 20:02, 29 September 2014
    5. Reverted on 20:58, 29 September 2014


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Chelsea Clinton and WP:BLPN#Chelsea Clinton

    Comments:

    User is engaged in a similar edit war on Jenna Bush Hager. How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Winkelvi can invoke the BLP here in all good faith, even if their interpretation is not accepted by everyone--and there's more than one edit warrior there, and some mud being flung in edit summaries ("no rational argument"). As it is, this admin accepts Winkelvi's argument. But I'm not going to protect it since the current version is the wrong version, IMO, and I'm not going to revert, lest I get accused of edit warring again for a single revert attempting to protect the BLP. FWIW, I am not convinced at all by the arguments on the talk page that WP:BLPNAME does not apply here, and who knows, maybe we'll all be at ArbCom again later this week. So, good luck to the patrolling admin. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How hot is the sun? is doing some very bad faith editing, declaring that there is a consensus on the matter and that User:Winkelvi is opposing consensus. There is no consensus. How hot is the sun? has even lied about this at another article. As I said there, when an editor feels the need to resort to lies to support a point of view, there's probably something very wrong with that point of view. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you don't feel consensus has been reached, but remember that consensus is not about counting noses. If Winkelvi wants to appeal consensus the proper way to go about it is through the arbcom, not edit war. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to "feel" anything. No consensus was reached. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not about feelings, nor is it about counting noses: it is about the quality of the arguments, and while I'm sure you feel that you are right, that doesn't mean that you actually are. There is no consensus right now: there is no consensus on the talk page, there is no consensus on the BLP noticeboard. The only thing there is, as far as I can tell, is more people willing to add the information than there are people willing to remove it. And no, it's not ArbCom that determines consensus; it's discussion which, if necessary, will be closed by an uninvolved editor. Until then, there's opinions on both sides. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Article protected 24 hours by User:HJ Mitchell. Continued edit warring when protection expires could, in my opinion, lead to blocks. Excluding the well-publicized name of a minor child from the article is not one of the exceptions to 3RR listed at WP:3RRNO. It's a pure matter of editor consensus and not entitled to special BLP protection. What is revertible under the BLP exception is "libelous, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material.." The widely known name of a minor child is none of these. If you want to create a higher standard of privacy than our policy requires then you'll need to persuade the other editors to go along with your view. You can't just continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely disagree with your assessment of including the names of non-notable minor children of article subjects, EdJohnston and your interpretation of WP:BLPNAME. So do a lot of other editors (including admins) along with previous discussions at BLP-talk and this very noticeboard. Obviously, there is no clear answer on this aside from what policy states (that is not in your camp) on this issue.-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At this noticeboard the BLP exception is defined by WP:3RRNO. If you want to go beyond that there is no substitute for finding a consensus to back you up. User:Drmies observes that no consensus in either direction has so far been found. Consider opening up an WP:RFC where, if your assumptions are correct, you should many people supporting your view. On the other hand they might not. But waiting for the result of an RfC would be the right thing to do and it would save you from being blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I'm actually of three minds. Content-wise I'm with Winkelvi et al. Admin-wise I observed what you just observed I observed. And while I think that the BLP was invoked in good faith, BLP/ANEW-wise I agree with you that it does not allow for an exception here. Then again, I'm glad you didn't block Winkelvi, and I wish there had been a bit more reticence from both sides. Thanks Ed, and perhaps you'll feel bold enough to assess the consensus if everyone has raged enough, including me. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brianmathe reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Brianmathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link

    Diff of the user's revert:

    diff


    Prompt return to previous behavior that was the cause of a block per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Brianmathe_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_Blocked.29

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

    Comments:

    It seems this editor is resuming the same behavior once the block ended. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kudzu1 reported by User:DocumentError (Result: No action)

    Page: American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kudzu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [67]
    2. [68]
    3. [69]

    Comments:

    • this article is currently under 1RR; I reverted an edit to this highly contentious article with the note "this should be discussed" - it was subsequently undone by editor with a rather combative "WP:POINT" DocumentError (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I have made one revert, as have you. Furthermore, your own reversion was unconstructive and WP:POINTy, and you previously indicated your intention to oppose all editing to the article on the Talk page, which I regard as poor faith: [70] So what are you trying to get me in trouble for, exactly? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I oppose all editing until the numerous issues that have been raised regarding that issue are worked out through consensus. I'm sorry you've made the choice to declare I'm acting in poor faith because of that. I'm not trying to "get you in trouble." This article is under a 1RR restriction. DocumentError (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means no more than one revert in 24 hours. I have reverted the same number of times as you: one. And I do think declaring your opposition to all editing, and then reverting a fairly technical edit I made to redirect a wikilink to the article Iraq, is disruptive editing behavior. I have been trying all evening to assume good faith with you, but the rancorous accusations you have made toward me and other editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and on Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq and your activity surrounding this article are complicating that somewhat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And the WP:CANVASSING and WP:PA you and your trio are engaging in at those same articles, and in the AfD ([71]) have complicated it for me, as well. You've also indicated you're fine with a renaming of the article, then undone edits where I've renamed it ([72]) and refused to participate in a discussion of alternate names. I have not accused you of being obstinate or obstructive like you have accused me, for doing that, nor will I. I always AGF. I notice you've previously been blocked - was it for a similar reason or something different? DocumentError (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you brought it up, I was blocked for about an hour in mid-2011 for making a rookie editing mistake while working on South Sudan content: [73] I hope we can set aside these issues and work together on improving this content, going forward. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So it seems you only have these issues in Near-East/North Africa related articles? I agree, a more temperate and collaborative approach would allow focus on content improvement. DocumentError (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of de-escalation, I am withdrawing this complaint against Kudzu1. DocumentError (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Legacypac reported by User:DocumentError (Result: No action)

    Page: American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [74]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [75]
    2. [76]
    3. [77]

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

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

    Comments:
    - At 01:47, 30 September I placed a systemic bias tag on article, accompanied by a Talk discussion. Less than 6 hours later - 07:09, 30 September, 30 September - after just 3 other editors had weighed in - Legacypac declared the discussion had "failed" [78] and reverted my edit so as to remove the tags. I undid Legacypac's removal and also cautioned him on the Talk page with the note "The tag has been up for a few hours. Please give editors an opportunity to express their opinion. Wikipedia is not a race. Thank you." He then engaged in 1RR by reverting my edit. This page is currently under active community sanctions and 1RR is prohibited. At the present time, as a result of Legacypac's 1RR, there are no systemic bias tags on this article, a situation I am unable to alter without committing 1RR myself. DocumentError (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    But wait, let's take a look at all your reverts in the past 24 hours: 1 2 3 4 (And unlike the diffs you posted when "reporting" me above, each of these is actually a revert by you!) Honestly, I really don't like things going this way in what should be a collaborative environment, but this is just out of hand, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are 1RR. Edit-warring is objectively measured; either you did or you didn't. Did you mean to bring this up in a different noticeboard or are you simply trying to make waves? The latter is not constructive. I notice you've been blocked before for issues related to Near East/North Africa articles; was it a similar issue to this? DocumentError (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant to bring this up here, because this is getting tedious. Those who live in glass houses, etc. etc. WP:1RR allows no more than one revert in a 24-hour period; you have clearly reverted four times. If you think administrators need to get involved here, I think they should know what the guy filing the reports has been doing. (And as for the block, I posted the diff above for all to see. I'm not interested in getting into a WP:BATTLE rehash of a completely unrelated incident that happened more than three years ago and was fully resolved within 60 minutes.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR allows no more than one revert to the same edit; it is not a blanket one revert action per article. (If that were the case, every single person - with one exception - who has contributed to that article would have violated 1RR by my count.) I would, again, implore you to please choose to approach editing in a more collaborative manner and veer away from your "Take No Prisoners" approach. We're here to encyclopedia-build. DocumentError (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely incorrect. From the policy page: "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood what I wrote, and perhaps that's my fault for not being more clear. As per 3RR: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. I have not committed 1RR as I have only made one undo to the content of the page. The other 2 reverts you noted (you duplicated one) were non-content reverts to correct 1RR violations created by Legacypac. Hopefully that explains it better. I appreciate the enthusiasm you've put into trying to kneecap your "opponents," I hope you can learn to channel that enthusiasm into contributing content, too. I'm not going to discuss this more; if you feel I committed 1RR I strongly encourage you to file an AN3 against me so we can keep this one on-track. Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike you, I don't feel the need to resolve our differences by going to the admins over and over again. If anyone is guilty of trying to "kneecap" anyone here, it's you, with these bogus reports, the spurious WP:SPEEDY nom, the AN/I request, loads of shame tags, and blatant character assassination of everyone who disagrees with you (seriously, you brought up a editing block that lasted less than an hour from more than three years ago on unrelated content for unrelated editing behavior twice to mock me!). I haven't interacted with you much in the past that I can recall, but I can only hope this isn't how you behave on this website all of the time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudzu1, I'm not interested in debating this. With your repeated WP:CALMDOWN notes to me, you have indicated you have no interest resolving our content differences amicably. 1RR is a bright line, this WP:DRAMA is not contributing to the discussion. Can we agree to make this the last post here so as to de-escalate? DocumentError (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    DocumentError is using every tool he can think of to push his POV, including this report and the one above it. He started an AfD too on the artcle which has 3 or 4 editors (including me now) calling for Admin sanctions and then creates a SB discussion. Oh and on related articles favors locking one to freeze it in a position he likes, RfDs, etc. Further, there were more like 5 editors opposing the absurd Systemic_Bias tag with no support for it before I cut it as part of a general cleanup. The edit reverted DocumentError was to a general cleanup that reflects consensus, not a revert to anyone's edits in particular. Yup, I reverted his undiscussed, unwarranted revert of my edit right away (my first revert) - before he posted any explanation, or at least before I saw his comments. This BATTLE behavior is wasting everyone's time and needs to end please. And thanks Kudzu1 for your research and post.Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact there is an active AfD does not mean "all rules are off - every man for himself!" 1RR is a bright line to keep robust and intense discussion, like we are having, from descending into disruptive behavior. DocumentError (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did you violate it three times? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not. Please stop. DocumentError (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of de-escalation, I am withdrawing this complaint against Legacypac. DocumentError (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)|[reply]

    Does withdrawing the complaint stop Admin from sanctioning the complainer? Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Nor, does it stop "sanctions" against the original complainant if an Admin deems it necessary. Since you have gone to ANI to allege I have withdrew this notice disingenuously, I happily reinstate it so as to disabuse you of that notion. DocumentError (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a gross misstatement of my actions or comments. I did not take you to ANI, you took yourself there. Withdraw your attack please. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm. I did not file an ANI against myself to the best of my knowledge. DocumentError (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action at this time. Negotiation is a good thing. Some of the above discussion suggests that User:DocumentError is actually in the minority in some recent disagreements. If that impression is correct I hope he will discuss patiently and wait for consensus before reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I hope "being in the minority" is not the new standard that permits 1RR, the kind of cross-Wiki abuse and combative asides the LegacyPAC [79] has heaped on me, and his misperception of my GF attempts to de-escalate as the opportunity to "go in for the kill." That's not how I remember it used to work. I'm very concerned a small group of editors with colorful block records, who canvass each other and talk on IRC are being allowed to railroad a set of tightly linked articles; being "in the minority" is a tough job in these times and it's tougher when the very fact you're in the minority is viewed as a negative. DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a larger number of editors that are tired of DucumentError using various admin processes to try to override consensus. All these accusations are also baseless. I don't use IRC and have no connection to any other editor WP editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising an issue with 1RR has nothing to do with trying to "override consensus." WP does not operate by majority vote and it certainly does not operate by majority vote following a period of WP:CAMPAIGNING. I have committed not to selective notification of users on Talk pages or discussion with others on IRC, but rather to pursue issues through the appropriate avenues. And I will continue to do so, even if it means I appear to be in "the minority" instead of an engineered majority. That's how I was told WP works and it's what I believe in. Thanks for your input, LegacyPAC. DocumentError (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amt000 reported by User:Origamite (Result: )

    Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: There is no previous version, because he's continually removing the whole section, contributed by Jinkinson, Thecodingproject, 12.1.154.226, 198.30.60.32, 66.233.207.101, Rustypup49, Cesium 133, Tlhslobus, and others. This is the (current) state of the section: [80].

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [81]
    2. [82]
    3. [83]
    4. [84]

    (Reverting is defined as undoing another editor's work. However, if 3RR doesn't apply, he clearly plans to continue edit warring. He deleted the section on September 24, too. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [86] I used the user's talk page to try to talk to him, but he didn't respond.

    Comments:
    Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a section to discuss the matter at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories#User_blanking_section, and left a notification on their talk page.--Auric talk 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    mh 17 connection of pitbull and shakira is totaly trash . every body know this is rubbiesh and not belibale. so why it is on wikipedia. in the matter of reference wikipedia is not news paper WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Amt000 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:27, 26 September 2014
    2. 02:43, 27 September 2014
    3. 16:13, 27 September 2014
    4. 22:51, 29 September 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:33, 28 September 2014

    Discussions on appropriate use of aticle talk page with : User_talk:Johnmoor#WP:TALK, User_talk:Johnmoor#Courtesy_notice

    Comments:
    Edit-warring on the talk page to interfere with an RfC. Johnmoor has been behaving as SPA and owner of this article since the end of July/early August, apparently as a paid editor. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Struwwelpepper reported by User:124.149.77.181 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Artur Mas i Gavarró (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Struwwelpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [87]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [88]
    2. [89]
    3. [90]
    4. [91]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user doesn't even provide edit summaries or any reason for reversion, so I don't think the talk page is gonna help.

    Comments: User is pushing a pro-Spain POV on Catalan pages and engaging in cultural erasure. On the page of the president of Catalonia, they keep changing "is a Catalan politician" to "is a Spanish politician", against a longstanding consensus. There is a Twitter user of the same name (not a very common one) based in Madrid [93]. Refuses to engage at all, seems to be using IPs as well and another account, Cataluniaesespania1 (talk · contribs) (translates as Catalonia is Spain). User has also reverted legitimate edits on other pages I've made.


    Francoist user is now claiming Catalan people "don't exist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.77.181 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Struwwelpepper is warned to stop reverting the nationality of this politician until he gets a clear consensus on the talk page in his favor. At the same time, I'm semiprotecting the article (with apologies to the good-faith IPs) for one month because there are too many IPs to warn and monitor. The precedent from other similar articles suggests that such politicians are identified by Wikipedia as having Catalan nationality. This man is the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya which is the government of Catalonia. Note that we have a Category:Catalan politicians so there seems to a practice of identifying certain public figures as having Catalan nationality. Use the talk page if you disagree, and want to establish a new consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.149.77.181 reported by User:Struwwelpepper (Result: Semi, warning)

    Page: Artur Mas i Gavarró (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 124.149.77.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17:37, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,545)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎

    17:36, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (current) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)]

    1. [17:37, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,545)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎

    17:36, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (current) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)]

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I have reverted without talking because (ab)user uses offensive language, see post below. I also do no think correcting facts that are actual real facts do not need explaining: Catalan is not a nationality, the actual nationality is Spanish]

    Comments: I did not talk back to this user because the language they use is obviously evil: 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)> 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3&action=history

    Previous version reverted to: (cur | prev) 17:36, 30 September 2014‎ 124.149.77.181 (talk)‎ . . (18,975 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (undo)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    see link: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3&action=history

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ABuser 124.149.77.181 keeps on changing and providing page with misleading information. I was afraid to try to talk and solve this matter as ABuser is using offensive language:

    17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)

    On his report, he also provides with misleading info saying that I am based in Madrid (based on my twitter account??) and saying that I may have another account too, which I DO NOT. I have had this account for over 5 years and never in my life have abused any other users - you can verify that on my records] Comments:I have corrected the nationality of the personality in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3 because I think Wikipedia is a an on-line encyclopedia and many people gather their information from wikipedia. Contrary to the accussations of ABuser 124.149.77.181, I am not a pro-Spain abuser. The real fact is that the Catalan nationality does not exist as of today 30/Sep 2014. I want to be an American but I don't have an American passport so just because I say I'm an American doesn't mean it's true, right>

    User:Jimharlow99 reported by User:Lisa (Result: )

    Page: Golden Rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jimharlow99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [95]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Okay, bear with me, because this has gone pear-shaped very quickly. The last stable version of the article is dated September 14, 2014. ([96])

    On September 30, 2014, User:Jimharlow99 made an edit to the Judaism section of the article. ([97]) This entry was prepared according to the Hebrew Babylonian Tradition. It reflects the core of Rabbinic Judaism which has been forfeited, by many sects of Judaism, in favor of "theological" positions outside Judaism.

    1. User:Paul Barlow reverted this odd, but apparently good faith edit. ([98]) Undid revision 627696889 by Jimharlow99 (talk) oh please
    2. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([99]) Undid revision 627701818 by Paul Barlow (talk) Mr Barlow - the page you insist upon is a Christian View of the Judaic position. My edits reflect a Rabbinic Jewish Position; edited by Rabbis
    3. User:Fyrael reverted it. ([100]) Undid revision 627716099 by Jimharlow99 (talk) reverting unsourced edit that utterly fails WP:NPOV
    4. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([101]) Undid revision 627717237 by Fyrael (talk) No more reverts or I escalate these incessant reversions as Vandalism. The Section on Judaism now reflects the position of Rabbinic Jews.
    5. User:Paul Barlow reverted it again. ([102]) Undid revision 627725234 by Jimharlow99 (talk) please read W::BRD
    6. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([103]) Undid revision 627748586 by Paul Barlow (talk)
    7. User:Paul Barlow reverted it again. ([104]) Undid revision 627749190 by Jimharlow99 (talk) Please take rthis to talk. Self assertions of authority are of no significance here
    8. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([105]) Undid revision 627749634 by Paul Barlow (talk) This incessant reverting has been reported as Vandalism; I posted the sources. Christians censoring Jewish topics will not stand.
    9. User:Hgilbert reverted it this time. ([106]) Reverted to revision 627749634 by Paul Barlow (talk): More encyclopedias version. (TW)
    10. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([107]) Undid revision 627755937 by Hgilbert (talk) Another one....I'll just add you to the list of vandals....

    And that's where it stands right now. I'd revert it, but User:Jimharlow99 will simply restore it.

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

    Comments:
    As you can see, User:Jimharlow99 refuses to hear any objection to his edit, and although he's been on Wikipedia for at least 7 years, does not seem to be aware that his behavior is inappropriate. I'm hoping that a cooling-off period will give him some time to reflect. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    yep, I've been writing content on Wikipedia for a number of years and never have I met such an intransigent group intent upon misinforming as much as disinforming Wikipedia readers. I focus my energies of Jewish content- nothing else. I am a resource for other Wikipedia authors in the area of Judaica, Halakha, monotheistic jurisprudence and localized customs; and am a curator of Jewish genealogy for a number of organizations. I am a subject matter expert, whereas the reverters seem intent upon forcing a Jew to yield to their Christian consensus of what the Jewish view of "The Golden Rule" should be. Utter pedantic foolishness of the sort I've never witnessed on Wikipedia in all these years. Lise and Mr Barlow have over-reached -- they are at once I'll-qualified to judge Jewish views on the topic, but worse, they insist that the authoritative references I cite are inferior to the mendacious content they continue to revert. I am at best, underwhelmed...nonetheless gobsmacked that this is tolerated. Cooling off period? Nonsense...the only cooling off period is incumbent upon editors who insist upon simultaneously censoring subject matter experts in favor of their own POV. Jaim Harlow 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=627769728"