Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring 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:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki/User:Anglo-Araneophilus reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )

Page

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Anglo-Araneophilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 5 February 2016‎ (as Anglo-Araneophilus)
2. 23:27, 5 February 2016 (as Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki)
3. 23:34, 5 February 2016 (as Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki)
4. 00:06, 6 February 2016 (as Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:41, 5 February 2016 (my attempt to warn him about the 3RR rule)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen#Civilian casualties in Saudi border zone Section on the discussion where I attempted to explain that the sources were clear about where the casualties were sustained. Made attempt at discussion on his talk page as well.

Comments:

As can be seen in the differences above, the editor in question first used the account name Anglo-Araneophilus to make a full revert of my edit. After that he switched to a second account, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki, and made two more full reverts of my edits. At this point I myself made a third revert (my first being a semi-one) and let him know that I would not make any more attempts to revert him myself. However, I also warned him on his talk page, as per WP policy, that if he made another revert he would be in violation of 3RR and I would have to report him. Despite this he made his 4th edit, where he again undid my edit (Saudi Arabia) back to a slight variation of the wording that he has constantly been reverting to (Saudi border zone instead of Saudi border regions). I attempted to discuss the issue with him at both his talk page and the article talk page and all of my arguments were not accepted. Despite switching between two accounts it is obvious the same editor made 4 cancellations of my edits, thus both accounts should be considered for blocking, if decided by an administrator. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

BACKGROUND: It should be very clear from the article's history that I am constructively contributing to the article a lot and carefully using always thorough references, never participating in a single edit war - since now. In contrary to user EkoGraf, who is participating in edit wars or semi edit wars regularly (in this article) without adding substantially new information or visibly improving this article. In this case I originally corrected an important information (diff link) dealing with a casualty figure, because Reuters (diff link) and AFP (diff link) reported in strictly contesting manner about this (Reuters saying "375 civilians killed"; AFP saying "killed or wounded 375 civilians" and quoting the Saudi coalitions spokesman with ""375 (civilians) were killed and injured,""). The former article version did not mention the AFP version at all. Both sources were given to the article as references by myself. I'm telling this because this shows that we have to report very carefully about this casualty figure, since we don't have any offcially and independently confirmed information (Saudi-led coalition as a conflict party announced to publish detailed information about the casualty figure later, but it seems not to be available so far) and the news agency reports of the (oral?) announcements of the spokesman are very conflicting, even illogical in part, as shown.

EDITS CONCERNED: EkoGraf substituted the careful quote by a non-quoting wording without any comment in the article history and without using the talk page at all (diff link). So my first revert was motivated in restoring the quotation as a careful approach in echoing the media reports. As commented explicitly in the article version (diff link). EkoGraf's next revert was justified explicitly with redundance (diff link) and I explicitly avoided the queried term in my fourth revert and chose a new phrasing (diff link). So in three reverts I insisted in carefully citing the news agencies (as mentioned) which did not use the term "in Saudi Arabia", but used "in Saudi border zone" (AFP), "Saudi border regions" (AFP) and "on its border" (Reuters) and "Mortars and rockets fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages have killed..." only (which in a border region can mean that civilians in both territories were affected - this has not been specified yet). I cannot recognize the clear intention in EkoGraf's edits to improve the article this way. Instead of he claimed the "Sources are clear" (cited Reuters and AFP), immediately counted the reverts and did not hesitate to report me here without responding to the fact, that the media reports detect very shady information. I don't believe the 3RR was created to support such an approach. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I will not go into the issue of the argument, because this is not the place for this. I will only say, contrary to your assertion, I responded to the fact as you put it on both your talk page and the article talk page, and I warned you per WP policy of the 3RR rule which you ignored and reverted my edit a 4th time anyway. And weather you chose a new phrasing (which was almost the same) in your 4th edit or not, WP policy is and I quote Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Everything else is now up to the administrators. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's what I'm saying, too. You left the work to the administrators instead of finding a solution by cooperating. Just the way you are acting in the article. Look who is doing the main work there and compare who is complaining most. Your main work there was counting edits. But I won't go into it any more neither. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat myself for the last time. I attempted to discuss both on your talk page and the article discussion page, you refused my arguments. I also warned you of the 3RR rule which you ignored and violated. And I counted edits only after the point when you made 3 reverts and I had to warn you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's true, you covered your back, I know. But you failed seeking seriously a solution and improvement for the article, but prepared an opportunity to make a report here. This is not the idea of Wikipedia's 3RR, I guess. I will repat myself for a last time as well: if your claim should be wrong and the civilian deaths (announced by Saudi coalition's spokesman and echoed by AFP and Reuters) did not happen in "Saudi Arabia" only (as you wrote in the article, but was not stated in the media), but in Saudi Arabian and in Yemeni border territory, this would mean, that you have spread a wrong information by unnecessaryly and uncarefully interpreting the source erroneously. The wording I proposed ("Saudi border regions" or "Saudi border zone") simply can't be a misinterpretation of the sources, because it quotes them literally. Therefore we should find a careful wording. Since the used sources contain other inconsistent data concerning the casualty figure, one can expect that you at least respond to this argument. But you did not try that wholeheartedly, but immediately focussed on preparing a 3RR report, claiming you are "sorry" to report me here. That's why we are here now and others have to participate in that game. For the sake of the encyclopedia or for yours? Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your sources, like I said before, make no mention of the attacks taking place in Yemen, only Saudi Arabia. Your speculation of Yemen is OR. I responded to all your arguments. And I remind you again (lost count how many times) that this noticeboard is not the appropriate place for this discussion. This noticeboard here is only to review whether you broke 3RR, which you did. And I again repeat (don't know why you keep making me repeat myself) that I did not immediately focussed on preparing a 3RR report, instead I warned you (as required by WP policy) of 3RR only after you made 3 reverts, which you ignored. EkoGraf (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct, you reminded me (one time btw) that this noticeboard is not the appropriate place for discussing technical questions. I agree with you in this point. According 3RR: I simply should not have reverted repeatedly in short time what you reverted repeatedly in short time. I did not do in the past and I won't repeat in the future. I already noticed that your finger tends to be some quick at the 3RR trigger. Every minute, which is lost here, gets lost for the article. I cannot retrace what drives an editor to prefer the way you chose. But I know what is important for me, that is to proceed contributions to improve the encyclopedia. The decision you requested here won't substitute thorough work on the article. Decision can be made here, it's okay for me. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The only time I use the 3RR trigger as you put it is when the number of reverts an editor makes reaches three, at which point per WP policy I am obligated to warn them, and if they ignore it to report them (as I did). So its not a matter of me being quick on the trigger, but following WP guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

41.169.20.244 reported by User:Darek555 (Result: Semi)

Page: Permanent death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.169.20.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
User constantly removes my section

--Darek555 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected three days by User:Peacemaker67. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fez120 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fez120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703634603 by Thomas.W (talk)"
2. 17:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703624444 by Zoupan (talk)"
3. 11:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703588763 by Zoupan (talk) No time/will to comment the edit war by Zoupan."
4. 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703533006 by Zoupan (talk) Revert unconstructive behaviour, without explanation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[8]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See attempt to discuss the edits on Talk:Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (Serbia), started by Zoupan. But with no participation by Fez120.

Comments:

POV edit-warring. Thomas.W ^talk 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This slow-mo edit-warring has been going on for a while. GAB^Hello! 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The user refuses to discuss. I have warned him, initiated discussions, but to no avail. Two words, disruptive editing. Has 0 contribution to WP. WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 15:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at The Expulsion of the Albanians. It is getting out of hand.--Zoupan 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Akash3141 reported by User:LM2000 (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Undertaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akash3141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]
6. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:User has been to AN/I twice this week. The Undertaker history shows a long history of edit warring, incivility, ignorance of WP:RS and general incompetence. For additional information see AN/I thread from last week which was archived been the issues were resolved. User was previously warned by other users for WP:OWN issues [18] and edit warring [19] in late January.

Akash3141 has continued edit warring since I made this report and alerted him to that on his talk page.LM2000 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

Blocked – 3 days by User:Coffee for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: blocked for a week)

Page: Racialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]

(he self-reverted one of these but that still leaves 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]. Previous, albeit recent, warnings about edit warring: [33] by User:Nick-D, and [34] by User:Zozoulia. Here is a warning to Solntsa90 about stalking and harassment [35]

This is actually the *latest* in a ongoing campaign of WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by User:Solntsa90 (see details below), which so far involves at least six different articles where they've started or contributed to edit wars. Recent discussions attempting to resolve differences can be found on respective articles talk pages as well as the user's talk page.

Comments:

The problem is actually a bit more serious than an edit war on a single page. User:Solntsa90 is engaged in an ongoing campaign of WP:HARASSMENT of myself, and this is just the SIXTH article they followed me to in order to make revenge reverts and to start edit wars. Here's the background:

In mid January, User:Solntsa90 appeared on the article on RT (TV network). They instigated an edit war over stuff that had been discussed previously on numerous occasions, acted belligerently on the talk page, yadda, yadda, yadda, they were topic banned from the article [36] by User:Drmies under discretionary sanctions. I participated in the discussion on the RT article.

Apparantly Solntsa90 blames me for that topic ban (as opposed to their own disruptive actions because that'd be like, you know, assuming personal responsibility for what one does or something crazy like that). Soon after they began following me around to other articles - articles they've never edited, never showed an interest in, had nothing to do with them - simply to either make revenge reverts, start edit wars or cause drama on the talk page (always disagreeing with whatever position I took). Here's the full list:

Six different edit wars in less than a week = evidence of stalking and harassment

• On January 24th, Solntsa90 shows up to the article on David Irving to revert [37] an edit I've made previously [38]. An edit war ensues in which Solntsa90 edit wars against three different editors (User:Nick-D, User:Maunus and User:FreeKnowledgeCreator). He actually breaks 3RR right there and then 1st rvt, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th rvt. Solntsa90 HAS NEVER before edited that article nor shown interest in it.
• Since that didn't get my attention sufficiently quick, on February 1st, Solntsa90 shows up to an article I was actively engaged in, Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 to once again make revenge reverts: 1st rvt, 2nd rvt, 3rd rvt, 4th rvt. Again, this is an article Solntsa90 has never edited or shown interest in before. Indeed, it's not even related to their usual topic area.
• On February 5th he does the same thing on the Spetznaz article, although this time limits himself to "only" three reverts: 1st rvt, 2nd rvt, 3rd revert. Again, this is just Solntsa90 showing up to an article they never edited before just to revert me and start an edit war.
• On February 6th, I make a comment on the talk page of the Vladimir Putin article: [39]. Less than an hour later, Solntsa90 shows up to disagree with me [40]. They then proceed to start another edit war (mostly against other editors): 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th though here the 4 rvts come in a little bit over 24 hrs (note also the extremely dishonest edit summaries). Again, an article which Solntsa90 showed no interest in until I made a comment on its talk page.
• The latest two instances of WP:STALKING were the Racialism article which is the subject of this report and the article on American Renaissance (magazine). Again, a topic and articles which Solntsa90 has *never* edited before nor shown interest in. On AmRen article, I make an edit on Feb 5th [41] (and I've made numerous previous edits over the course of several years, as with almost all articles listed here). Well, by now the story should be familiar. Solntsa90 soon shows up to edit war: 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

Together with the Racialism article which is the subject of this report that makes it SIX articles that Solntsa90 has followed me to and started edit wars on, in less than a week. On all six of these Solntsa90 has never made edits before, they have never shown an interest in before, they have never commented on them. It's about as clear a case of WP:STALKING as you can get.

The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Or rather they are here, to act disruptively, to harass other editors and to pursue petty grudges based on imagined grievances. The six edit wars in less than a week (which include at least two outright violations of 3RR) are bad enough but the fact that Solntsa90 just started them to WP:HARASS makes it much worse. These six cases together constitute definitive evidence that the purpose behind them "is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.". In all instances the "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. ". And all of them are "accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" [42].

It's actually a pretty good bet that Solntsa90 has already written off the particular account, Solntsa90, as I can't imagine anyone violating so many policies so blatantly and not expecting to get blocked. I'm guessing the purpose here is to "take me down" with him, as he goes down in flames, by provoking me into making a 3RR violation. And this is being done by just mindlessly reverting me wherever I make edits on Wikipedia.

I also think that a topic ban from both Eastern-European Topics and Race & Intelligence (that appears to be the relevant overlap here) should be made, on top of the appropriate block for edit warring and stalking, under discretionary sanctions based on the tendentious nature of the user's edits. As just one quick example, in this comment [43] Solntsa90 describes Holocaust denial as just a "heterodox view on the Holocaust", because, you know, whether or not the Holocaust happened is just a matter of opinion, man! Riggggghhhhhhttttttt....

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Volunteer Marek has been acting in extremely poor faith against me for some time now. First, he accused me of being a shill of the Russian government on multiple occasions. Secondly, He has accusing me of being a sockpuppet multiple times, when, ironically, he himself is under investigation for sockpuppetry.

Finally, we have an overlap of interests--Eastern European issues, controversial history, etc.--if editing a major article like Vladimir Putin or on the 2015 Polish Constitutional Crisis or Spetsnaz is "wiki-stalking"--why don't I just go ahead and edit every major article on here, so that Marek can never WP:HOUNDING me ever again?

The logic is a seeming attempt to get me to stop contributing on talk pages to otherwise strongarmed discussions that are made with politically incentivised edits with otherwise inexperienced users, and I can see why he doesn't like that and would like me to be silenced.

For example, on the American Renaissance page, Marek seems certain to remove the NPOV tag, despite no consensus being reached among the editors and in fact, consensus going against what his edits ultimately reflect.

Finally, I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy: I edited the article on RT News only to have Marek work voraciously to overturn my edits.

I then contributed to the David Irving page, only to see to my surprise! Marek there again.

If any administrator wishes to take action against me, please, feel free to do so, but realise who exactly is accusing me of everything here.

Also, as for today's edits, Volunteer Marek himself did more than three separate renditions of controversial reversions, also in violation of the 3RR rule.

Solntsa90 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He has also called me "boorish", "creepy", and "assholish". Solntsa90 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, your attempts at bringing up my phrasing of Holocaust Revisionism/Denial is probably the worst ad hominem attempt to get me topic-banned I've ever seen. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally, how do you know what articles I do or do not show interest in? I've been an editor for more than 4 years now. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Solntsa90 is clearly a POV pushing SPA, who will eventually need to be dealt with - for example with a topic ban. This however is not the place to make the case for that, that would be ANI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• "he accused me of being a shill of the Russian government on multiple occasions" Where? Diffs please? Otherwise, quit lying.

Here is me being "under investigation for sock puppetry": [44]. You didn't get anything there? Oh. Well, quit lying.

And this "overlap of interests" seems to be newly found. In ALL of the cases I outline above, YOU - FOLLOWED - ME. It's not hard to check article history you know. The sequence is exactly the same in each instance: you've never made an edit. I've made edits. I make an edit. You show up and revert. Then next article.

Take RT News. My edits there long pre-date your appearance (and your edits were actually "overturned" by others, I mostly commented on talk). Then David Irving. I've been editing that article for close to 8 (yes, eight) years. You've just shown up this week to undo my previous edits. So... quit lying.

(and obsessively stalking people on the internet is indeed boorish and creepy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus, sure, the edit warring and stalking is enough for here though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks a user or two here has an axe to grind against me? Random ad hominem attacks etc. give a little bit away about the state of mind they have in regards to my character. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:HOUNDING, User:Maunus Why do you keep following me around? I've noticed almost every edit or discussion I've taken place in has involved you somehow, from David Irving to this now. What makes you so interested in my contributions that you'd find yourself here, unless you clicked on my contributions to find myself here?

Hypocrisy, all around, and plenty of it in steamin' heaps. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep making POV pushing edits to articles on my watchlist.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless of course, Marek is attempting to recruit supporters to his crusade here. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I certainly concur that Solntsa90's WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the David Irving article has been highly unhelpful. This has included a couple of bouts of edit warring (most recently on 5 February). Their recent conduct in the Racialism article clearly violates 3RR. There appears to be an agenda behind these kind of edits (eg, claiming that racism can be "scientific" [45], while also trying to portray Holocaust denier David Irving in a more positive light. I'd suggest that the responding admin implement a lengthy or indef block. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific racism is a thing, though. Also, Marek uses sockpuppets, there's much evidence shown for that in the report on him. Why block Solntsa90 over edit warring (which Marek has done much, such as with me as you can see on American Renaissance's History) and 3RR violation when Marek has been doing the same/similar things? Be WP:NPOV about this, I'd say let this one slide because Marek has been poorly editing, clearly apparently as of late, and has been making WP:IDONTLIKEIT edits in my experience, so it's not unwarranted on the part of Solntsa90 to edit war with him, also it should be taken into account that it seems sometimes Marek edits with the intent to cause edit wars, or doesn't care if they happen. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Also, Marek uses sockpuppets, there's much evidence shown for that in the report on him'' - oh yeah? Which report would that be? Or are you just making stuff up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Now this is the part where you get to tell me how my edits on David Irving "attempt to portray him in a more positive light". I'll wait for it. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Read it when it was up, it was very believable. There was good evidence. If somebody could get a log of it, that'd be very good. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Volunteer_Marek&action=edit&redlink=1 Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion reason is "Case thrown out. No legitimate evidence presented". Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that's a mistake, that's nonsense dude. Let's see a log. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you can stop it with the lying and mud slinging now. You've been called out on it and got nothing to show.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The logs should be reviewed. I've been WP:CIVIL actually, you have a tendency on Wikipedia to WP:INCIVILITY from what I can see. It seems like you are expressing negative emotion in your accusation towards me since I am being honest about my belief, because it is detrimental to you. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to accuse people of WP:INCIVILITY. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What logs? What are you talking about? The admin threw out the SPI filing against me with the comment "(non-controversial) cleanup: Case thrown out. No legitimate evidence presented.)" Yet here you show up throwing up completely baseless, false, dishonest (and you know they are baseless, false and dishonest) accusations that I'm sock puppeting. Then you turn around and demand "civility". You serious? And how do you know about any of my "tendency" on Wikipedia. Best I can tell, we've never interacted before and your account was created only a couple weeks ago (and immediately jumped into controversy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins having source logs of the SPI filing is what I'm talking about. We've been editing on some of the same pages, and you've reverted some of my edits, I've checked you out since then, and saw you've ran into some warnings because you've been poorly editing. No, I know you're mad because what I'm saying is true. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring on the Irving article is worth a week's block. Whether the editor needs a block for hounding or more widespread disruption, I'll leave for other admins--whom I encourage to look into this matter. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins should also be aware that Marek is a user of sockpuppets, as I strongly suspect, and if the source logs for the SPI on him were reviewed, strong evidence for sockpuppetry would be seen. He is here with an agenda to further his POV, and not to contribute in a WP:NPOV way. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide proof or shut the hell up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are WP:HERE, quit the WP:INCIVILITY. I am requesting that the proof comes out from the Admins. It should be known that you've been unfairly targeting Solnsta90, as they have pointed out multiple times. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Connor Machiavelli now also blocked for continued unfounded accusations of socking. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:MsSDelaney reported by User:Uncle Milty (Result: No action)

Page

Tony George (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703732321 by Uncle Milty (talk)"
2. 07:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703731390 by Yankees10 (talk) Stop vandalizing and Bullying..I'm working on each section...your removing NON copied parts as well"
3. 07:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703729511 by Riley Huntley (talk) PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS PAGE"
4. 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703723180 by Yankees10 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tony George (American football)‎. (TW)"
2. 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Suggest taking a breather"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User claims to be article subject's manager/agent and is attempting to own the article. Much of her additions are copy/paste additions, and added images are not likely to be her own work as claimed. Continues to revert others unabated. | Uncle Milty | talk | 08:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to the generic warnings given, I wrote out a paragraph that included references to WP:C-P, WP:POV and WP:BLP. Although they acknowledged the first, they ignored the two latter. There is a clear WP:COI. -- Cheers, Riley 08:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note I've left the new user a note about editing with conflict if interest as well. Hopefully the edit warring has subsided.—Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: I've marked this report as closed with no action per the message left by admin User:Bagumba. If there are more reverts, a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100.15.134.190 reported by User:Debresser (Result: No action)

Page: Halakha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.15.134.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54], [55], [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Halakha#Halaqa

Comments:At first I simply reverted this editor once or twice. When I saw he is not going to discuss, I opened the talkpage discussion linked above. Then Dweller protected the article, in what in my point of view was overkill, and in addition expressed his opinion in favor of the change the IP editor is proposing on the talkpage.[57] No additional comments have been made regarding this issue on the talkpage.
Apart from the IP being annoyingly condescending in his edit summaries (see especially the before last one), and posting awfully long posts that are equally annoyingly condescending, the real problem is that he just doesn't stop adding that hatnote, even though there is no consensus for it, and he has not replied to the content of my objection on the talkpage. Please notice that in his last edit summary, he has stated that he is not going to desist from edit warring: "I'm not capitulating. I think you should know that. Not until you propose a solution will I relent."[58]

Debresser, I'm sorry if calling you my brother and a fellow son of Adam was condescending to you. Second, I was pointing out the fact that you really don't have any direct ability to block me yet sent a threatening notice on my talk page as if you did have any real admin powers. Third, I tried my best to address your arguments, upon which you still refuse to provide any substance. It's not my fault that Dweller didn't agree with you, or as you like to put it, "address your arguments." So how do we settle this? We can't compromise on an either/or situation. So propose something for me. On the Halakha talk page in my comments on January 21, I laid out my proposal. So give me something so we can finally call this quits. 100.15.134.190 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't come here to reach a compromise. that we can do on the talkpage. I came here because of the behavioral issue: you are edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, both User:Debresser and User:100.15.134.190 should be blocked. They are both warring on the {{Distinguish|Halaqa}} template on the Halakha article since December. There are at least eight reverts by each person. The article was fully protected for two weeks by User:Dweller on 20 January, but the war continued as soon as protection expired. Either party can avoid a block if they will promise to make no more reverts on this article until consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, I love how you edited your first comments to make it seems like I demanded a solution from you before I notified you of my 2.5-week-old proposal, when in reality I waited 5 hours for you to reply to my concerns posted here before I resorted to adding the hatnote back again. Anyhow, I would like the administrator to know that, out of a lack of a proposal of his own, Debresser did his research and proved to me that Halakha and Halaqa do not have the same Semitic root, which was the term of my proposal. Although it were the similarities in spelling and, especially, the English pronunciation of Halaqa and Halakha that prompted me to add the hatnote on both pages, I will abide by my own promise and concede to Debresser's point of view. 100.15.134.190 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not even one of these edits are even on the same date - with some of them being several days apart. SQL^{Query me!} 00:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid edit war just for a redirect, but I don't think anybody will make the spellings incorrectly, now that the IP user conceded that the root of both words are different and both spellings are not bound to be confused, I don't think a block for either is warranted since a block is not to be punitive, but rather a stop gap for future disruption. You may issue a large trout if you will and nominate this for stupid edit war of the year though. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason I should be blocked for reverting the non-consensus edits of an IP edit warrior. Rather, in my opinion, the IP editor should be blocked for a few days, to bring across the point that his behavior is disruptive. I have said that much to Dweller on his talkpage.[59] Debresser (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I revert edits from disruptive IPs who don't understand they shouldn't insist on their edits all day, see e.g. today's edits at Religion in Israel. If you would block me for this kind of activity, you would be directly undermining the integrity of this project, by punishing editors for protecting against disruptive editors. Unfortunately, this is not the first time, that I have seen myself under threat of a block because of this. I would kindly like to ask you to do me the courtesy of reading my post of 31 August 2015 on this issue. It is only 3 paragraphs. By the way, EdJohnston, you were involved then as well. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it is my understanding that the argument has been decided in my favor, as per the IPs admission on the talkpage,[60] and as mention by Sir Joseph above, so the edit war has come to an end already. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the IP seems to have agreed to stop. It sounds like User:Debresser would like blanket permission to revert the edits of IPs that he disapproves of. This is not part of our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not "blanket permission", and not "that he disapproves of". But some reasonable (not involving 3RR violations, for example) leeway in stopping IPs who fail to understand the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS and disrupt the project by starting their careers here with edit warring, that seems something the project can only benefit from. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Truewiki2016 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page: California University of Business and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truewiki2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked two days ago for edit-warring on the same article -- see a section above, not even archived yet. As soon as the block ends, the editor resumes where he/she left off: [61]. By the time this section is actioned, there will no doubt be another revert. A block for continued edit-warring is warranted; there's no call for waiting until 3rr is violated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. The user constantly removes the word 'unaccredited'. See the article's talk page for the background on that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:73.152.154.221 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)

Page: Selected Ambient Works Volume II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.152.154.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
User continiously adds trivial list section without sources, claims they don't need sources, ignores talk page, and deletes talk page warnings here.

Note: IP also reverted this post. Seen here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WillsonSS3 reported by User:ParkH.Davis (Result: reporting editor blocked)

Page: Peyton Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WillsonSS3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]
7. [69]
8. [70]
9. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:.

User:WillsonSS3 has vandalized Peyton Manning several times in the last few minutes ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment' User:ParkH.Davis didn't attempt to discuss the issue with me, AT ALL. he just accused me of vandalism and reported me. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WillsonSS3 edits were clearly vandalism. I did not know if this was the correct forum to report him or not. I apologize if I reported him in the wrong area. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit: C.Fred beat me to comment. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The reverts may fall under exemption #7 of WP:3RRBLP—in which case, WilsonSS3 would have been well advised to have brought the matter to a noticeboard for additional assistance. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, per the diff, there has been no attempt to discuss this at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been rectified. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

well...congratulations. maybe you should have started with that, instead of accusing me of vandalism. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (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. A batch of multiple reverts without intervening edits counts as a single revert. I'm showing three reverts in the last 24 hours by WilsonSS3: 16:23-16:28 UTC, 16:32, and 16:43. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  User:WillsonSS3 has now reverted the page for a 4th time in the last 24 hours. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

check again. It's not a revert. It's an edit. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The policy in question states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." WP:3RR. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

does this include removing of an opinion piece masquerading as a reliable source? and removing a piece of a title that hasn't been proven(the anti women comments) <- this last part is just your personal input. and you are reporting me of vandalism? WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can this situation please be resolved by an administrator so it doesn't escalate out of control? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WillsonSS3 is continuing to unilaterally alter the article in question. Can this please be resolved by an admin? ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

CommentParkH.Davis now takes issue with the fact i stay true to the sources he provided. examples

• Manning has been accused of sexual harassment not sexual assault
• Manning has never been described as a misogynist in any of the sources, that's just ParkH.Davis personal assumption.
• failed to provide proof of the alleged bullying. hiring investigators in itself is no bullying. nor have the investigator committed any act that would require police involvement ex threatening Sly and his family. at least not in sources given.

ParkH.Davis has shown malicious intent on the Peyton Manning page. He seems more preoccupied in getting his way than improving the page. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can this please be resolved by an admin? I do not want to argue with User:WillsonSS3. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

it's called debating and reaching consensus. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are unilaterally deleting large sections of content, without any previous attempt to achieve a consensus. You have also violated the three revert rule. This is not a debate forum for discussing your personal opinions on the subjects of articles. Can this please be resolved by an admin immediately? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

that is just not true. I deleted an opinion piece insert, by a blogger, that didn't qualify as a reliable source. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can this situation please be resolved by an admin? User:WillsonSS3 has clearly violated the three revert rule. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

i don't think so. they were corrective edits, not reverts. also, you might have violated the 3RR about 5 times. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can this please be resolved by an admin ASAP? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible for this to be resolved by an admin ASAP? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am now being threatened by User:WillsonSS3, [74], who has now made his 5th revert within the last 24 hours. He is also now blanking large sections of content without seeking consensus for his edits. Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

1st off i wasn't threatening you. that would violate the personal conduct policy

2nd i'm removing content that doesn't belong in the controversy section - the (alleged) fact that the media has bias for certain players is not Manning's controversy, it's a corporate media problem -

3rd i'm adding new information and unlike you i source it.

4th you were the one who reverted(again) WillsonSS3 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin please resolve this? It has clearly gotten out of control and User:WillsonSS3 appears to have taken ownership of the article and is blocking me from making any edit which he personally disagrees with and unilaterally blanking anything he disagrees with. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC) User:WillsonSS3 has reverted for the 6th time within the last 24 hours. Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. this is getting annoying. i don't revert(click undo). I add and remove and I always give reasons and sources. My purpose is to make the page better not to take ownership of it as you put it. besides, you violated the 3RR about 15 times by now. WillsonSS3 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin please resolve this? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Looking at the history of the page, it's ParkH.Davis who had broken 3RR. So, to "resolve this", I've blocked his account. This is his second block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Editornovo reported by User:Magidin (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Fermat's Last Theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editornovo

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]

Also removed speedy deletion notices from Pablo Hernan Pereyra

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

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

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

Comments:
The additions to Fermat's Last Theorem are not credible, and the sources provided not reliable. The Pablo Hernan Pereyra also contains claims that are not credible and with no reliable sources. This is very likely the editor himself, giving conflict of interest. The editor has three times removed the speedy deletion template from Pablo Hernan Pereyra, despite being advised in the talk page that as the creator he should not remove it. And has three times reverted the deletion of his added content to Fermat's Last Theorem, despite being warned in his talk page.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 04:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tilde.drakan reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

Page: Ttongsul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tilde.drakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

03:38, 7 February 2016‎ 219.110.121.11 (talk)‎ . . (5,622 bytes) (-2,582)‎ . . (Deleted some statements b/c their citations are irrelevant (as I mentioned before) or the translation of the citation is wrong. Please find appropriate citations first if an editor wants to restore them.)[84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,645 bytes) (+1,023)‎ . . (drug medicinc, cuisine delete category. Undid revision 703706605 by 219.110.121.11 (talk))[85]
2. 10:58, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+991)‎ . . (Revert vandalism.)[86]
3. 11:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Undid revision 703909103 by 125.184.187.139 (talk))[87]
4. 06:14, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+600)‎ . . (With respect to Sengoku period, Source exists. refrain from malicious editing.)[88]
5. 06:51, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,115 bytes) (+429)‎ . . (restored to a stable version.)[89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:09, 9 February 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,884 bytes) (+1,803)‎ . . (→‎February 2016: new section)[90]

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

Comments:

It was distorted documents from the beginning of Phoenix7777. For example. "The fecal wine local history of the Korean peninsula has been many centuries, except for the era when the Japanese Empire prohibited the practice due to health concerns." [91]This is, Non-existent information. Malignant edit, cause confusion in the false information.―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:112.201.56.181 reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: )

Page

Michael Page (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922531 by Morohbj (talk)"
   2. 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922455 by Morohbj (talk)"
   3. 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922381 by Morohbj (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905039 by Morohbj (talk)"
   2. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905021 by Morohbj (talk)"
   3. 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703904852 by Morohbj (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The other party in the edit war made a thread on the talk page, IP did not react to it or to my warning and continued reverting instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Me and (Result: Warning)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows no articles, just a full page ad."
   2. 23:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows "International Show News", nothing regarding WLVA."
   3. 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   4. 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   5. 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson"
   6. 23:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   7. 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing information that was linked to sources that did not show the information on the page. Other sources are correct and that information remains."
2. 16:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "unsourced, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V violations."
3. 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "all unsourced, do not readd without sources. thank you."
4. 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 24.3.21.159 (talk): Information is unsourced, please add third-party reliable sources per WP:RS. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "/* WLVA */ WP:3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User's reverts are just outside the 24-hour 3RR boundary, seemingly as a deliberate attempt to avoid the bright-line 3RR rule. They are insisting on removing information with good sources added by an IP editor and which I went through and meticulously verified myself before re-adding. Attempted to discuss with the editor on their talk page (including an explicit 3RR warning) and on Drmies' talk page, but Neutralhomer continues to insist the sources are invalid. —me_and 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Minor wording clarification —me_and 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added some more discussion on the WLVA talk page in the hope that explaining precisely how Neutralhomer could verify the sources himself might help. —me_and 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits that begin with "removing" in the edit summary are actual edits, not reverts and thus not covered under 3RR. The last three are reverts and I stand at 3RR and have not made any reverts since the manual warning given at 17:55 on 2/8.

My continued issue with these edits is that the references on the WLVA page do not correspond to articles within the linked reference. As such, the information can not be confirmed and under OR and RS can be removed.

Also, for further reference for Me_and, I'm a guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to look into this, but something's come up and I ran out of time. To save the next admin some time, just a note that the series of edits that start with "removing" do count as a revert, because taken as a whole - which we do with consecutive edits - they remove a large majority of the IP editor's text that NH previously just reverted (plus some other stuff). WP:3RR clearly includes the phrase "in whole or in part". No comment on blocks or warnings, haven't had time to look at other people's behavior or the content of edits. But there were definitely 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours + 20 minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Regardless, though, I am going on an extended WikiBreak while I re-examine my participation in this project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • (oops, forgot about this) "Agree to disagree" is not an option. You are wrong, about a very clearly worded policy, and it may get you blocked. "Agree to disagree" is an unwise reaction to finding out you're wrong about something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Floquenbeam: So I should just ignore references that don't match the articles linked? I went through each one of these "Variety" references that Me_and is so desperate to add. This one is an ad, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or WLW. The others are the same. The references given on the WLVA page can not be found on the "Variety" magazine links given. So, should I have left them there or should I have removed them because the references were not correct? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • First, this is not about content, it's about WP:3RR, and your apparent gaming of it (in two ways). Second, I see you've commented on the article talk page, where your confusion about page numbers has been answered, but you don't appear to have read their message. And third, this attitude that User:me_and is "desperate" to add these references, like they're trying to pull something, shows that you do not have the correct attitude to deal with other good faith editors right now. That wikibreak seems like a pretty good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• On the one hand, I hate to turn a blind eye to gaming the system (breaking a revert into pieces and claiming it isn't a revert, 4th revert a few minutes after the 24 hr clock had "reset"). On the other hand, when NH's 4th revert was undone, he did not attempt to revert again, and claims to be starting a wikibreak; if I were to block NH for 48 hours (because last edit warring block was a while ago), it might interfere with his ability to let go of the place for a while, which would be a good idea. So, no blocking, but a warning that this was absolutely a 3RR violation, and could easily have led to a block if I weren't such a pushover. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Yesantiago reported by User:KungAvSand (Result: )

Page

Ponce Health Sciences University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "authorized by chief operation office ann coss"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operations office"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
   2. 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
4. 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
2. 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University. (TW)"
3. 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has an obvious conflict of interest and keeps on removing the previous (mostly properly sourced) content and replaces it with content obviously taken from some sort of promotional material issued by the university (text mentions "our students" etc.); also destroying the previous format in the process. All attempts at letting Yesantiago know about the problems with these edits seem to have been in vain, and the page currently includes the problematic material again. KungAvSand (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)