|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so. |
||||
|
||||
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 than 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 the 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. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:114.134.89.21 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Protected by NeilN)
- 2 User:2.120.174.10 and User:Dr John Peterson reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Protected)
- 3 User:Catty319 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)
- 4 User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Semi)
- 5 User:95.113.98.204 reported by User:MaverickLittle (Result: Blocked)
- 6 User:Tadeusz Nowak reported by User:Widefox (Result: Stale)
- 7 User:Peachman2000 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Blocked)
- 8 User:Kyle121101 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)
- 9 User:Kendrick7 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: protected)
- 10 User:Bashirmsaad reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 11 User:86.82.44.193 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- 12 User:USAismisunderstood reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 13 39.53.177.93 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Semi-protected)
- 14 User:2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: semi-protected)
- 15 User:Mendess55 reported by User:Zickzack (Result: Warned user(s))
- 16 User:59.182.176.230 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
- 17 User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.215.181 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
- 18 User:KHLrookie reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Blocked)
- 19 User:2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Already blocked)
- 20 User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
User:114.134.89.21 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Protected by NeilN)
Page: Bangladesh Liberation War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Comments:
PakSol placed warnings on my talk page only after posting here. Shows his manipulative behavior all along. Despite being debunked by reliable sources and widely held consensus, he and his gang of some Pakistan-based users continue to pursue pointless edit wars. It is they who provoke and indulge in unnecessary edit warring. PakSol's pro-Pakistan army POVs are reflected by his username, which suggests that he's very much associated with the Pakistan military and makes a serious conflict of interest. This guy is trying to push the wrong side of history.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is clearly a content dispute and it gives you no excuse to violate WP:3RR. I'm not going to absolve others as faultless, but when there is discussion on the issue ongoing at the talk page, you have no logic to premptively escalate the edit war. You have made 7 reverts on that article within a 24 hour window, and you've reverted up to 3 separate editors. That is ridiculous. Technically, you ought to be blocked for both edit warring and disruptive editing. Mar4d (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- You and your edit warrior pals ought to be topic banned on 1971. Removing reliable sources, misrepresenting sources and distorting historical accuracy is just unacceptable.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Administrators must take note. All references added by this IP which were being removed by PakSol and Faizan are very much reliable. I can prove it now. The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and the Failures of Great Powers written by Peter Tomsen, and Dictionary of Genocide: A-L.Cosmic Emperor 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
i don't see talk page will be much helpful for an Ip User if three/ four users reject his reliable refences. Still that doesn't give him the right to break Wiki policy. It's better he should open an account.Cosmic Emperor 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- So, what you want to say is that an IP has the right to edit war? PakSol talk 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
For discussion on the correctness of sources see the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Deliberate_Misinterpretation_of_SourcesPakSol talk 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Page protected and an RfC is taking place at the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:2.120.174.10 and User:Dr John Peterson reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Protected)
- Page
- Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2.120.174.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Dr John Peterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the IP user's reverts
- 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "There is no monarchy in Greece so he is not crown prince of anywhere."
- 16:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666779253 by 331dot (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC) to 16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Military coup of 1967 */ Greece does not have a monarchy. This article wrongly acts as if they still do."
- 16:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666778415 by 2.120.174.10 (talk)"
- 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666778399 by 331dot (talk)"
- 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Military coup of 1967 */"
- 16:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Marriage and issue */"
- 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
- 16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Titles and styles */"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC) to 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Greece does not have a monarchy. It was abolished."
- 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
- Diffs of Dr John Peterson's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The consensus at Talk:Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece is that this is a correct title. This IP and User:Dr John Peterson (who's clearly the same person, see [12]) seek to destroy this consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Greece has NO monarchy and therefore can not possibly have a crown prince. It is pure deceit by the extreme monarchist Joseph2303 to claim otherwise. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)I was accused of edit warring by Dr John Peterson but it was my understanding that the BRD cycle was not edit warring; that's all I wanted to accomplish. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- (ec)@Dr John Peterson: Did you read the talkpage, all the reliable sources say you're wrong. Also, I've not an "extreme monarchist", I believe monarchies are a waste of space. However, I believe in using reliable sources like the ones on the talkpage, as a basis for building a credible encyclopedia. Also, my name is Joseph2302, not Joseph2303.
- I agree that such blatant unsourced BLP violations are excluded from WP:3RR anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Joseph3300 I see no rational reasoning on the talk page, which has been written by extreme monarchists anyway. Greece does NOT officially have a monarchy and does not recognise him as a crown prince. That is legal authority over the nonsense written by monarchists on the talk page. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The ONLY reliable and official source of information is the Greek government who agrees with me 100%. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The point here is that this sort of discussion should have been taking place on the talk page; BRD is all I was trying to do. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's a discussion on the talkpage, I've given my view. Have you read the sources on there Dr Juqn Petrsen (sorry, I might have misspelled your name, like you did to me. Also, changing your IP address every 5 minutes to push your ideas is not the way to achieve an actual consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Josephine232323 have you never heard of assuming good faith on Wikipedia. It's one of the principles. There are a number of people in this vicinity who did not agree with the nonsensical claims being made. It's better that you do not use different WP usernames and IDs to push your ideas ! I read all the talk page. I don't see a shred of cogent reasoning or facts that would support the former Greek monarchies delusional determination to still describe themselves as royalty when the Greek governments official and legal policy is that there is NO monarchy. If half a dozen neo Nazis on Hitler's talk page claim him to be still alive are we to change the article accordingly because there is consensus amongst them ? --Dr John Peterson (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for your POV, and please desist from the personal attacks by deliberately mispelling and vandalising my name. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think that this User:Joseph2302 is involved in vandalism of many articles, with unability to discuss things correctly with many editors. He should assume good faith before reporting other editors. Fsfolks (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of vandalism when it's actually a content dispute is a personal attack, as you've already been warned. Also, it's not my fault I've got involved with lots of people who revert rather than discuss, against WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Page protected – 2 days by User:NeilN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Catty319 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- List of Girl Meets World episodes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Catty319 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666539138 by Geraldo Perez (talk)The sources DO support the info, if you look carefully at ALL the info."
- 20:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666804528 by Geraldo Perez (talk) As I have stated SEVERAL times, the info I added IS valid and my sources DO support my info if you look closely."
- 01:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "gave new info with a more reliable source"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- 11:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666837972 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Stop! Just stop. You tare down my edits and my sources and replace them with new info with outdated sources."
- 12:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
- 13:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
- 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
- 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User changes the viewership numbers for the episodes, replacing already well-referenced info with bogus data and unreliable sources (which include links to user-created pages), and has repeatedly done this for several days now (more than three times in the last day so it's against WP:3RR), with a few editors, including myself, having reverted these edits and warning user about unreliability of sources. Warnings on user's talk page point user to discuss edits on talk page, and user has brought up the references being used at Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes#Viewership Section, but is told several more times about the sources being unreliable, or not directly supporting the viewership numbers the user is entering into the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Adding this user's revert to the report diff @ 15:04, 14 June 2015, the 5th time in the last 24 hours. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jt029350, which asserts that Catty319 is a sock of another editor who previously worked on Girl Meets World and is now indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:82.11.33.86 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Semi)
Page: Balochistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (RfC related to the dispute raised by the IP itself at the talk page): [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (recent similar query raised by another IP at talk page in which this IP participated): [18]—PakSol talk 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
- These IPs are clearly under 4RR, but as they are using static IPs, they change and it serves to avoid 4RR under the same identity. I request the IP be blocked and the page be protected, I already requested it here. All that fuss over some info actually related to the Pakistani Balochistan and not to the geographical region of Balochistan, but the IPs don't seem to understand. And PakSol, please avoid edit-warring and opt for DRN or an RfA and avoid edit-warring even if you are right. This is the way here at Wikipedia. If you make 4 reverts in 24 hours, you will be blocked too! @EdJohnston:, Please have a look? Faizan (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Balochistan is semiprotected two months due to IP edit warring; PakSol is warned. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:95.113.98.204 reported by User:MaverickLittle (Result: Blocked)
Page: Franklin Graham ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.113.98.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff, diff, diff.
Comments:Anon Editor 95.113.98.204 keeps adding his own personal opinion to the Franklin Graham article. He is a new editor with only ten edits on Wikipedia. He refuses to follow the reliable source requirements. The edit that he keeps doing requires a reliable source to back it up, but he refuses to provide one, only supplying his own opinion, which of course, is not a reliable source. I think that I need to not only point out his 3RR violation, but his BLP violations.--ML (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Tadeusz Nowak reported by User:Widefox (Result: Stale)
- Page
- Transracial ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Tadeusz Nowak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666952967 by Widefox (talk). Rv attempt to push WP:HOAX currently subject to AfD"
- 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "rm attempt to give WP:NEO hoax (currently subject to an AfD) undue prominence"
- 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Incorrect edit to a disambiguation page on Transracial. (TW)"
- 20:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Transracial. (TW)"
- 20:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Transracial. (TW)"
- 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit summaries */ dab page"
(disruption, battleground)
- 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ edit warring"
- 21:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Transracial */ justify it"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Prev justification for my analysis, as pointed to and awaiting any reply. [19]
Instead, WP:FORUMSHOP at Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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: [20]. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial due to it being an adjective. Widefox; talk 00:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- (User:Cwobeel if referring to me) Hardly - I used the talk page before anyone else was on the dab. There's many editors trying to delete the NEO, so?, the dab has been there a year. Widefox; talk 01:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- (if referring to 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15 and anywhere else. Widefox; talk 04:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial due to it being an adjective. Widefox; talk 00:48, 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)
- Here's a diff: [20]. You've moved the only accepted meaning of the word "transracial" down into the "see also" section
User:Peachman2000 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Black Book of Communism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peachman2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Nine reverts within the span of 20:56, 13 June 2015 – 00:37, 15 June 2015.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
Comments:
The user also has said he will "continue fighting for a more accurate representation of the Maoist International Movements criticism" against the book (diff), despite not taking part in talk-page discussion. I am sort of filing this report on behalf of Lklundin since he apparently hasn't done it. --Pudeo' 03:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Kyle121101 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Draymond Green ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kyle121101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "I changed Green's position to Power forward / Center because he usually starts at power forward (has started 2 NBA finals game at center), then slides into center when the first group of subs come in, please do not change it back to just "forward"."
- 00:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 19:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draymond Green. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Playing center */ new section"
- 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Kyle121101 "Warning: Edit warring on Draymond Green. (TW)"
- Comments:
More reverts since opening of this report:
—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Kendrick7 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: protected)
- Page
- 2015 Texas pool party incident ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "again, the djinni is out of the bottle here"
- 02:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666710490 by Winner 42 (talk) name has "been widely disseminated" [23]"
- 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 04:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "restore version of lede not from someone who supports the article's deletion"
- 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667000903 by VQuakr (talk) revert vandalism"
- 05:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667005353 by Heyyouoverthere (talk) Revert vandalism by an editor who actively supports the article's deletion"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2015 Texas pool party incident. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Mentioning proper name */ still no reason given to include"
- Comments:
A bit of mild WP:VANDNOT and WP:AGF failure as well. The biography was promptly deleted largely for BLP concerns, and turning this article on the event into a fake bio is not better. See also the thread at WP:BLPN; I realize I am in the minority (but not alone) in recognizing there is a significant risk of real-world harm by contributing to popularizing the name, hence the unusually high number of reverts on my part. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Notified: [24] VQuakr (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- This editor has been entirely uncooperative despite being reported to the BLP noticeboard here, as well as to discussion on the article's talk page. I don't see how I'm the bad guy here, and I'm not a fan of being WP:WIKILAWYERED into submission. -- Kendrick7talk 04:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Editors who support the deletion of the article continue to try and game the system here.[25] Can an Admin please step up? -- Kendrick7talk 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Bashirmsaad reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Faruk Malami Yabo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Bashirmsaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements & Awards */"
- 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Achievements and awards */"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 12:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 13:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
- 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
- 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
- 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
- 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career History */"
- 13:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 14:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Business and Interest */"
- 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Faruk Malami Yabo. (TW)"
- 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 Wikipedia 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)
-
-
-
-
- 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) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.82.44.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Removed a reference to a highly unknown (in-)formalism. At minimum it would need to be confirmed by the Erlang authors.
- 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.
- Find a quote where the authors of Erlang discuss Hewitt's Actor Model.
- 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 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: USAismisunderstood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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
- 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."
- 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."
- 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"
- 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667128420 by GB fan (talk)"
- 19:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667079356 by Ravensfire (talk)"
- 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667030134 by GB fan (talk)"
- 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666957777 by Foxj (talk)"
- 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 666941711 by Foxj (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Northwoods. (TW)"
- 10:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "/* What you can do */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 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 [[27]]. -- GB fan 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
39.53.177.93 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Semi-protected)
Page: Kevin Owens ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 39.53.177.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
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 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:590:3c03:55:2511:1c9:f223:5541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]
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)
- @Malcolmxl5: can you block the ip under block evasion?--ABCDEFAD✉ 22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Mendess55 reported by User:Zickzack (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Zeybeks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendess55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]
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 talk to me 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:59.182.176.230 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
- Page
- Kamala Nehru ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 59.182.176.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC) " "
- 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Thomas, this is being discussed. Do not interfere."
- 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Try and be civil, also read WP:OWN"
- 09:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "That is just your view, Who are you anyway?"
- 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 talk 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, see User_talk:NeilN#Kamala_Nehru. --NeilN talk to me 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- ... and still edit warring. _Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.215.181 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page: Erlang (programming language) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Westland Wessex ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
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 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KHLrookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [64]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]
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)
User:2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Already blocked)
Page: The Big Bang Theory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FB90:1229:CF3C:0:43:AAEC:D601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]
Comments: In clear violation of 3RR.
User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
- Page
- When contact changes minds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 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"
- 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"
- 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
- 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 [76], 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): [77]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your entire participation over the entire dispute has been to say, on precisely two occasions and without any elaboration whatsoever, that you agree with David. That's what I was referring to as not participating. That also includes your pithy but eminently unhelpful edit summaries, including "yep, I saw [the noticeboard discussion] [but decided to ignore it completely and resume edit-warring]". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nomo's latest participation at talk page (today): [77]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)