Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive306

User:CFredkin reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned)

Page

Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "editing based on Talk discussion"
2. 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Abortion */ restore undisputed edits"
3. 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Abortion */ restoring POV tag"
4. 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702342258 by JzG (talk) These are separate edits in a separate Talk thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carly_Fiorina#Removal_of_sourced_content_and_restoration_of_POV_language)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "/* POV language and spin */ comment"
2. 01:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "sources"

Comments:

It does indeed appear that I inadvertently broke the 24 hour rule by 1 minute. No excuses, here. In any case, I've removed the article from my watchlist and don't plan to edit there in the future.CFredkin (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: CFredkin is warned for edit warring at Carly Fiorina. No block because they have agreed to stay away from the article in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Metduran reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

Page

History of the Russo-Turkish wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 20:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Contact me"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on History of the Russo-Turkish wars. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverting multiple editors, at 5RR last count to keep new (and questionable) content Scr★pIron^IV 21:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I confirm this. A Turkish user nicknamed Metduran is currently waging an endless edit war in "History of Russo-Turkish wars", trying to change the outcome of some of the Russo-Turkish wars to "Ottoman victory", despite the fact that his views are not supported by any authoritative sources whatsoever and are against the opinion of professional historians, history books and Wikipedia articles alike. He is reverting edits made by other users, keeps changing the text to his own liking and is making references to unreliable Turkish websites such as this ([2]), which are nothing more than loose copies of Wikipedia articles, in order to support his marginal opinion. Moreover, when somebody reverts his edits, he adds his text again and again, deleting everything that other users have written (including references to sources) and leaving comments in poor English.

In his edits, he claims that the outcome of the Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) was a "decisive Ottoman victory" (!?), although the article about this war and the sources it is based on say that the result was "indecisive" at best (David R. Stone, A Military History of Russia: From Ivan the Terrible to the War in Chechnya, (Greenwood Publishing, 2006), 41). That said, I don't even mention that no serious historian in the world defines the outcome of that war as a "decisive Ottoman victory".

He is also filling the list of Russo-Turkish wars with such ridiculous and unknown "wars" as the "Burn of Moscow - Crimean Khanate Victory" (the Crimean Khanate was in no way equal to Turkey, not to mention that "burn of Moscow" is not the name of a war), "battle of Oltenița", "Siege of Silistra" and "Siege of Sevastopol", which were battles, not wars, and part of the Crimean war that is already mentioned in the text, etc.

I urge the Administration to take measures against his disruptive editing. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

History Of the Russo Turkish Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScrapIronIV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dolchsto%C3%9F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eriba-Marduk

I changed its page and I added sources but these deleted them , I added back and they did delete again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metduran (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for caring about this, Mr. Johnson. To put it in a nutshell, this person deleted sourced content and was fanatically reverting the page, deleting useful edits made by others, leaving spam invitations on their pages and littering the article with his opinions, odd sections and links leading to little-known webpages in Turkish that prove nothing at all. Dolchstoß (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose (Result: Malformed report)

Hi I need to bring to attention issues in the Subhas Chandra Bose article. Essentially, an edit by Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) removed a a sentence that was referenced to a certain new site. Fowler concluded that his wider read of a certain British PM's biographies does not substantiate that he could make a comment as this PM is said to have made to a certain Governor of Bengal. The claim is published in a note in the memoirs of a respected Indian historian. I pointed out that this was WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and reverted this edit, but was undone by Fowler who said he would provide an explanation in talk page, but did not. I re-reverted his edit explaining in the talk page that Fowler was engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but was again re-reverted this time by regentspark (talk · contribs) who proceeded with a snide comment to state essentially state that a comment referenced to a website (news website) is not acceptable since historians have decided what is acceptable or not. He has essentially supported fowler's point. In my last edit, I edited to reflect a relatively widely held belief about the subject of the article in later Indian history, but this too has been reverted by GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs), moreover RegentsPark (talk · contribs) has in a jist warned me that I risk being blocked if I continue to edit to insert the views that he is stating are "fringe views". Essentially I am being threatened with blocking if I edited the article to make it what I would consider NPOV and WP:Balanced. On top of this I am being told by Regents park that there needs to be a consensus before what he considers "fringe Of note, Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) and myself have previously discussed something very similar in India talk page which is probably archived, and I made an adequate point to obtain a consensus that the Indian independence movement section which stood at the time was inadequate as the subject of the article Bose was not mentioned and he ought to have been mentioned. My conclusion was that Fowler only quoted sources that supported his views and blithely ignored what didn't even if they were well regarded and well-known. On top of this, Fowler I felt attempted to discredit the sources that offered any opposing argument. This current episode is turning into an edit warring with a very aggressive threatening attitude from Regents park essentially in support of one editor over another with a rather disingenuous approach to accepting references. Can somebody please have a look.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Malformed report. See the instructions at top of this page if you want to submit an edit warring complaint. The right place for this discussion is Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose. See WP:Dispute resolution for how to resolve a disagreement with other editors about article content. You will have to speak clearly and concisely if you expect people to follow your argument. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Shootseven reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Both blocked, Shootseven for 2 days, Winkelvi for 7 days )

Page

Billy the Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [3]]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. 05:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "See "Unauthenticated photographs" section of talk page for explanation."
5. 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Please see "Unauthenticated photographs" on "Talk" page before undoing this Undid revision 702374581 by Winkelvi (talk)"
6. 04:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702374237 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) to 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed unauthenticated photo of Tom O'Folliard; photos from the "Phillips Collection" have no provenance."
   2. 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed "croquet photo" because the entire section claimed it had been authenticated when every credible BTK historian disputes that - should be put back as alleged."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Billy the Kid. (TW)"
2. 04:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Billy the Kid. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Unauthenticated photographs */ resp"

Comments:

User is edit warring to continue removing sourced content and (at least one) authenticated photograph. Article is currently under GA review. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed no authenticated photographs, as I explained on the talk page (here: Yes. I'll post about the "croquet photo" first. I've already mentioned True West Magazine, which has devoted much of this month's issue to that photo. Sorry, I don't have a link, the main articles are not online. Here's a preview from earlier giving some other historians opinions: http://www.truewestmagazine.com/billy-the-kid-experts-weigh-in-on-the-croquet-photo/ So yes, I'll take the opinions of researchers like Frederick Nolan and Robert Utley (who both have works cited on this page) over whoever decided it should be declared authentic. (I'll post about O'Folliard in a moment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

1) It's not appropriate to remove sourced content from any article en masse. 2) Your reasoning at this point is personal opinion and original research. 3) You are edit warring and have exceeded WP:3RR. All are against Wikipedia policy, no matter how passionate you may feel about your changes and that you are right. As noted on your talk page, I have reported you for edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs)

I was trying to help keep unauthenticated photos off wikipedia. As you can see from this roundtable at the WWHA roundup (featuring the two biggest names in old west photo collection) fake Billy photos have become a major issue this year: http://wildwesthistory.org/2016-roundup.html (scroll down to program "Billy, Is That you?") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User is now adding factual errors that are not in line with the reliable sources already in the article. Everything the editor has claimed and added is based on WP:OR. Diffs here: [6], [7]. I have left another warning on their talk page, this time for adding factual errors [8]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask what I added that was unreliable? Look at the True West Magazine link already in the footnotes of the "croquet" photo section, it backs up everything I changed.

As for the other photo, I'm not the only one to question photos added by this user (from his personal collection): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OSMOND_PHILLIPS May I ask what proof or sources you want exactly for a photo that no expert believes is authentic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't add anything unreliable, you added content that is erroneous and have provided no reliable sources to support your claims/edits. There are reliable sources in the article that state the croquet photo has been authenticated. It is simply not acceptable to remove sourced content because you don't like it and read something that says the photo isn't real. As for the O'Folliard photo: If you have something solid from a reliable source that says the photo is a fake, you should present it at the article talk page (as you should also make your argument there against the croquet photo). This page is for reporting edit warring, not content disputes. Please read WP:RS for more information on what a reliable source is in Wikipedia and WP:VERIFY to understand the difference in Wikipedia between verifiability and truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I'm not at all involved, but happened to see this. It's perfectly true that Shootseven has violated 3RR and should be blocked. However, it's also true that the reporter, Winkelvi has violated 3RR just as much, by reverting Shootseven's edit four times in less than an hour (actually many more reverts, but 4 identical reverts) [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Before either Shootseven or Winkelvi claim they were 'right', I'll point out that violating 3RR leads to a block regardless of being right or wrong. It's obvious that both Shootseven and Winkelvi completely ignored 3RR, and both users have much deserve a block. After the block, I recommend them both to stay off Billy the Kid for a while. The edit warring between the two of you today was not pretty. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user being reported has returned to the article today and is continuing to revert and edit disruptively. I have added diffs to the list above. An AN/I has been filed by Chesnaught555 here. Further, it should be noted that I offered a compromise to the user being reported here, stating I would consider adding to the croquet photo section that there are historians who doubt the authentication of the photo. The user ignored the suggested compromise and continued to edit war, remove sourced content, and return to the same behavior again today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I will not disagree with User:Jeppiz. I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor so if I violated a rule I'm fine with a block. However, I do hope that User:Winkelvi is not able to simple control the page like he has the past two days, undoing any edit he doesn't agree with despite evidence. I hope the information on the talk page spurs people who actually care about accuracy to discuss the issue and correct the page. I'd do it myself but I'm unable to make the most minor correction without User:Winkelvi undoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors who disagree about authentication of a photo don't enjoy any exemption from 3RR under WP:3RRNO. If this warring doesn't stop, it appears that both User:Winkelvi and User:Shootseven should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry Ed, I didn't see this comment before making a decision. I've already blocked both. Shootseven for 2 days (he's new, but continued to do it after participating in this thread), and Winkelvi for a week (because he's had 5 previous edit warring blocks). Being "right", and being involved in a GA, are not exemptions, and Winkelvi knows this. Discussion on talk page can continue after blocks expire. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:174.95.7.198 reported by User:Eperoton (Result: Semi)

Page: Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.95.7.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:CtrlXctrlV reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Indeffed as a sock)

Page

Mitsubishi Magna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702129764 by Mr.choppers (talk) Sorry, the discussion has been reopened (yet to read latest, mind you). Restoring to uncontested version of 1.5 years with deleted info in place"
2. 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702116839 by OSX (talk) The discussion has been reopened, is only fresh, WP:NOPRICES is neither definitive nor compulsory, sole participants are just us.... let it run its course"
3. 15:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702116130 by OSX (talk) A discussion is underway, as is practice; reinstating this material that has been in this article for almost 1.5 years and deleted for ulterior reasons - user warned"
4. 15:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "(1) Varied "Japanese front wheel drive platform" comment since they were also AWD; (2) As there are open & unsettled discussions about some content of this article, reinstating same pending clear & final consensus. Poor readibility claim exaggerated."
5. 04:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Disputing the position, and opened a new discussion, as previous dates back to June 2014 and current initiated by OSX in retaliation for another open discussion"
6. 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Your dispute has come "after the events" and you have added further material since. Unfair and improper in light of the discussion that was taking place."
7. 04:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Convention is restore to version of the page before the dispute started - see TALK PAGE"
8. 03:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Majorly compromised revisions due to retaliation, while discussion in talk page still ongoing and no consensus reached"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. An RFC has been posted on the article's talk page has been posted and is ongoing.

Comments:

Continuous edit-war that has been going on for a couple of days. The first set of four in the string of reverts actually consist a 3RR violation within just 25 minutes. A sock-puppet investigation that is related to this issue, but has been stale for two days now, has been lodged. Tvx1 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked CtrlXctrlV based on the report at SPI, although I mildly resent Tvx1's comment that the report "has been stale for two days now". I assume what they mean is that it has seen no administrative action since it was opened on January 26. That's actually not a long time in SPI terms, but in this instance the squeaky wheel obtained an earlier review.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• In fact, Bbb23, my comment actually related to the fact that there had been no activity at all for two days, not just a lack of administrative attention. I will admit that I, thankfully, don't have much experience with sock-puppet investigations. My comment was really been born out of the fact that the article mentioned here was being disrupted for multiple days without much attention given to it. Anyways, that has happened now and hopefully the article can be kept in stable, good state now. Tvx1 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that's over, thanks folks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:TJD2 reported by User:68.37.227.226 (Result: )

Page: Template:Metal Gear chronology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TJD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]]/[25]/[26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

(Has repeatedly made the same edit as far back as September 2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

Repeatedly trying to make the same change over four months. Antagonistic attitude and refusal to work with other editors or discuss on the talk page. Did not provide a source for his claims until his most recent set wave of revisions; the sources themselves are ambiguous and can be interpreted multiple ways, and contradict a separate source that clearly states the exact opposite of his claim. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I did not edit war as in the last change I made substantial changes with more than three sources backing me up. You are the one trying to make this into an administrative issue and being antagonistic towards me just like that other IP Address was before you. I am asking you nicely to please stop trying to defame my work on WP, as I have been an editor for over 8 years and you seem to have just started in 2015. I will not speak on this topic anymore, as I don't wish to get into more arguments over something so frivolous. Have a good day. TJD2 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been an editor for far longer than seven years but gave up my account long ago in favor of IP-only editing. Also, the rules clearly state "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Choosing to add a source the last time doesn't change the fact that you tried to make the same change more than three times. You even asked me to find a source that says it's canon, and when I did and sought to use it as a point of discussion, you turned around and said "No, mine is the one true source, don't undo it" (Despite me bringing that same source up in my attempted discussion and another user using it as evidence to the contrary) and stonewalled me. If you don't want your work "defamed", how about engaging in an actual discussion instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, that's it, bye?" -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned one source in passing. Citing a source in the edit summary = / = properly sourced material. I actually took the extra step and found not one but FOUR sources to prove MGR:R is not canon; citing them within the article itself. Kojima has said on multiple occasions that it is not within the continuity of the MG/MGS series, and that it is a spinoff. He also states that it is in a parallel universe from the rest of the series; meaning it has no bearing on the official canon. Couple this with the fact that it was also developed by an entirely different company with Kojima's ideas all but thrown out, this is a non canon entry in the same vein as Snake's Revenge on the NES and Metal Gear Solid: Ghost Babel on the GBC. TJD2 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about on the talk page, which again, you ignored. More to the point, being a spin-off does not and has never explicitly meant something is non-canon; you can find plenty of spin-offs of other properties that occur in tandem with the original story. However, you have yet to provide a source that explicitly states "Rising is not canon":

• Your GameInformer source does not mention Rising at all, so that is irrelevant to this discussion.
• Your YouTube source, as I mentioned on the talk page and another user mentioned in a previous description, says at the 0:33 timestamp that "it is a continuation of the saga, a continuation of the story after Metal Gear Solid 4". He also states at 0:49 that "It's a little bit different than the story I had in mind for what would happen after Metal Gear Solid 4" and "you could kind of say it's a parallel story as well as a continuation". A parallel story is not necessarily one set in a parallel universe; two different narratives occurring at the same time would be parallel stories (See "Hamlet" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"). Not once in that video is the word "parallel dimension" said. Also, being different from what Kojima originally had in mind also does not explicitly mean "non-canon", in the same way that a TV show's creator leaving a series and another lead writer taking over with their own intended plot line is not rendered non-canon because it's not what the original creator planned. If it did, every Metal Gear game released from here on is non-canon, as Kojima is no longer involved in the series. Kojima Productions were the ones who wrote the script (specifically Etsu Tamari, who was always going to be the writer even before Platinum was brought in, so that stuff about "all Kojima's ideas being thrown out" is inaccurate), and seeing as how there were never any Kojima-directed games set after MGS4, it's not like it contradicts any other material.
• Your Twitter source is (very roughly) translated from Japanese to English (evidenced by the fact it suggests Raiden is a new character), and intent can easily have been lost in the conversion. It's also fairly clear that it's referring to how KojiPro decided to drop the Solid subtitle and set it at the end of the timeline so that Platinum would not be constrained by trying to fit it between MGS2 and MGS4, which has been discussed previously. Nowhere does it say "parallel dimension" or "non canon". (If not having "Solid" in the name was enough to be non-canon, that would remove the original two Metal Gear games from MSX from the timeline, which I think we all agree would be nonsense.)
• Your Playstation Life source only says that it's not a part of the Solid series, which no one would argue. Again, however, the Kojima quote it discusses says nothing about it not being canon or being set in a parallel world. The only one who interprets that is the article's writer, and considering PS Lifestyle is not on the list of verifiable sources for video game related citations, any interpretations by the author not derived from a specific statement by the developer should be taken with a grain of salt.

Compared to my source, which explicitly states that "Yes, this is canon." But again, you would know all this if you had actually looked at the discussion on the talk page as I suggested, where we SHOULD be having this discussion, and not ignoring other editors. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the PSL source states it's not apart of the main continuity...big difference. Also the source you list has the creators of MGR (Platinum Games) discussing where the story falls. They don't own Metal Gear, just the right to make one spinoff title for the seies. Even if they say it's canon that's like you or me writing an article and citing it as a source for canonicity. Until Hideo Kojima himself says it's canon it cannot be classified as such. All we know is that Kojima says it's a part of a parallel universe (meaning does not take place within the same continuity). This is all we need to derive the conclusion that it is not a part of the main story. ALSO there is the issue of an official promo photo here that clearly does not feature MGR as a title in the main canon. TJD2 (talk)

You're ignoring what I'm saying. The quote from Kojima in PSL doesn't say it's not part of the story, only that it takes place afterwards and is not part of the "Solid" series, which we know already; the only one saying it's not a part of the overall story is the person who wrote the article based on what they think Kojima meant, which as you stated is "like you or me writing an article and citing it as a source for canonicity". Your promo photo also doesn't include Portable Ops, which we've already established as (mostly) canon. And the person who says "yes, it's canon" in the video I cited is Yuji Korekado, the creative producer from Kojima Production/Konami, the people who DO own Metal Gear and would ultimately decide its canonicity, not Platinum. And finally, once again, not one of your sources has had a Kojima quote saying the words "parallel universe" as you claim, and I've already established why "parallel story" is not sufficient. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:GirlForTruth reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[33]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "3 sources used, all three known and reliable sources, your act is vandalism against wiki rules"
2. 03:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "The sources are Israel's State Channel 2 TV's website, very reliable and worldly, inline with Wiki rules"
3. 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "Makeandtoss is vandalizing the page, deleting material with reliable source.This against Wiki rules"
4. 03:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "makeandtoss is vandalizing this page, I have used the second most read News site in Israel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mudar Zahran. (TW)"
2. 03:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring at Mudar Zahran */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "/* "Influence" section */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours While they were warned after their last revert, the accusations of vandalism by other editors weigh against them. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:96.233.85.209 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Latin American cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.233.85.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34] (3 reverts here)
2. [35] (1 revert here, under account 71.174.172.185)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

• Semi-protected for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:83.49.183.241 reported by User:Lukaslt13 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Santiago de Compostela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:08, 30 sausio 2016 (UTC) "i CORRECTED SOME ERRORS"
2. 11:11, 30 sausio 2016 (UTC) "WYGEFDO"
3. 11:05, 31 sausio 2016 (UTC) "yerqdg we ySGUF"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:07, 31 sausio 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Vandalism! Testing pages, and vandal! Fed Up! I propose block 3 months. Lukaslt13 --Talk 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. It's a dynamic IP, Lucas, it can't be blocked for very long or it could easily affect other people. Thanks for reporting, but for another time, WP:AIV is the right noticeboard for vandalism. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much :).--Lukaslt13 --Talk 12:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Israel animal related conspiracy theories (Result: No action)

• Israel-related animal conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zozoulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've attempted to change the article above, but every time, I get reversed by a user.

I am trying to get rid of Stormfront being used as a reference, the heavy bias (including only Israeli commentary on the matter of the birds or animals themselves), and the weasel words being used throughout to insinuate a vehemently pro-Israeli position.

I would ask the administrators to review (or possibly lock) the article until some sort of resolve can be met. I attempted to initiate dialogue on the talk page, however, I was instead given an insinuation of anti-semitism from the same particular user.

I ask the admins to review page, and see to it that it gets cleaned up, for now, I'd even recommend it for deletion. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added User:Zozoulia to the report header, since this must be the person you refer to as 'the same particular user'. Let me know if this is a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding me to this conversation.

Solntsa90 decided to unilaterally delete several sections of the article in question without any proper discussion on the article's talk page. That itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is apparently not the first time that he has unilaterally made deletions from an existing Wikipedia article that relates to Israel and/or Jews. I therefore request that his deletes from this current article be reverted until a proper Wikipedia review process takes place.

In his initial response to me he made several claims that belie a NPOV. While I did not accuse him of antisemitism per se, his assumption I did so is defensive and revealing. The following are, inter alia, some of his reasons for unilateral deletion:

1. "In the "commentary" section, not a single Palestinian or Iranian voice is provided, despite Palestinians and Iranians being the primary witnesses of such events." This is simply untrue, so much so that one has to question whether Solntsa90 bothered to read the article in its entirety. The article quotes five Egyptians, one Saudi, one Lebanese, the president of the Palestinian Authority, two Palestinian news agencies, and an Iranian one as well. The article also quotes Irish, British, American, and Canadian journalists. I have mentioned to Solntsa90 that if he can find any Palestinian or Iranian authorities who should be quoted he is welcome to add any relevant comments that they have made.

2. "The whole article weighs heavily in a bias in favour of Israel (for crying out loud, the article even has some Israeli bird specialist working for the government who no one ever heard of dismissing the claims--of course Israel will dismiss the claims!)" The Israeli "bird specialist" (the proper term is "avian ecologist") is quoted in 947 news accounts that I personally have found online in languages using the Latin alphabet (i.e., not Hebrew), including, for example, in Italian, Romanian and Indonesian. Maybe Solntsa90 has never heard of him (which is not the proper standard for selecting an individual for quotation in a Wikipedia article), but plenty of other people have and rely on him as an expert in his field. He is a published author as well. Yes, he is an Israeli, but that does not impeach his authority on the subject at hand, unless one assumes all Israelis should automatically be disqualified from being quoted in Wikipedia. Being an Israeli does not automatically make someone "a spokesman for Israel," which Solntsa90 assumes he is without offering any evidence. This is quite revealing.

3. "The article was written in such a way so as to ridicule the opposing argument, while heavily insinuating that these 'conspiracy theories' have no merit." Does Solntsa90 believe they do have merit? I challenge anyone to find any term in the text that could be described as "ridicule," but yes, conspiracy theories such as these are absurd, even if they are widely believed in the Middle East. Indeed, the article quotes Saudi prince Bandar as dismissing the claims, and a Lebanese journalist who tries to explain why conspiracy theories thrive in the the Arab world and help define its political culture. Which, by the way, is the reason why this article is important to retain in Wikipedia.

4. "Otherwise, this entire article seems like it could have been written by IDF (Not saying it was, but one wouldn't be able to tell the difference)." Well, first of all, I am not employed by the IDF and never have been. Neither I nor my wife nor my children have served in the IDF. And anyone who is truly familiar with the IDF can readily tell the difference between a legitimate military document and this article. But what on earth does the IDF have to do with this anyway? This insinuation, like many others, is most revealing.

5. Solntsa90 unilaterally deleted from the text a reference that one of these conspiracy theories was repeated on a neo-Nazi web site. Removing that indicates a desire to whitewash the severity of the conspiracy theory itself. Its inclusion in the text is vital because it indicates a possible source for these conspiracy theories, as well as the existence of a ready audience for them.

I could go on, but these are the main points I wish to raise. For the record, I did not initiate or write the original article but did make substantial editions several years after it was first posted.

Zozoulia (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Neo-nazi websites, no matter how much they support your claim(s) or attempt to paint your opponents into a corner, are not sources, ever!!! Solntsa90 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Would you also remove references to a neo-Nazi web site on an article that discusses neo-Nazism? Have you done so in the past? Do you know that there is a Wikipedia article on this particular neo-Nazi website? See Stormfront (website) 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see why you'd use a neo-nazi website to support claims in an article just because they agree with your point. It shows a lack of judgement with your other edits as well. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The neo-Nazi website is NOT quoted. It is NOT used to "support claims" (clearly, any rational human being knows there is no such thing as a "super rat"). It is cited to draw attention to the type of audience that identifies with and propagates these conspiracy theories. 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Zozoulia (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since editors are now discussing. Be aware that this article is under a WP:1RR due to the subject matter. User: Zozoulia, please remember to sign your comments. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Thought I did and just corrected it. Thanks for the reminder. Zozoulia (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aliveness Cascade reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked)

Page

Will Horton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aliveness Cascade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702756089 by (talk) I've made incremental constructive changes. Your mass erasure of them is "mass-change" and vandalism and edit-warring. I will address your reasonable concerns when if you don't keep undoing."
2. 14:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702754765 by (talk) And you ignore mine. I was attempting to address some of your concerns when you undid again. Erasing everything I've done is bullying and destructive."
3. 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702751193 by (talk) My editing has been to update the article and add useful and pertinent info - and *is* in good faith. Undoing it all en masse *is* vandalism."
4. 11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702721260 by Jester66 (talk) Undoing massive vandalism, and restoring days of work"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Will Horton. (TW)"
2. 14:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Will Horton. (TW)"
3. 14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 update of article */"
2. 13:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 update of article */"

Comments:

User has been warned about their mass-changes to the Will Horton article, which include (and are not limited to) original research and unverifiable claims. Their edits change the notability of the page, and makes it fail per the qualities that are maintained by the Wikipedia Soap Opera Project. Attempt was made on both the talk page of the Will page, and their talk page (per warnings) to stop their edits, however, they've decided to continue on making their edits, in an attempt to also potentially own the page to their preferred made edits. livelikemusic talk! 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, user is ignoring the talk page to continually revert and edit the page, regardless of their warnings, and it seems this is an attempt to continue to own their preferred preference of the page, a.k.a. to maintain all of their edits. This seems very problematic to me, and it's clear this user is not here to edit in coordinance of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, especially in concern of BRD. livelikemusic talk! 14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)\

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Rpo.castro (Result: )

Page: S.C. Braga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [41]

Comments:

After the user first edition, I reverted, leaving a link in the summary explaining the reason. The user imediately reverted the edition. I left a warning in his talk page and he imediately reverted the revision in the article and in his talk page here. Looks its only interested only in a edit war.Rpo.castro (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Trinacrialucente reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702381414 by FreeatlastChitchat Already advanced conversation on Talk page. Present arguments there if you feel compelled to edit."
2. 05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702363002 by Code16 (talk) LOL!! you are definitely new at this. That is blatant WP:POV. Reverting back to consensus."
3. 01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Household */ rephrased to eliminate need for "citation needed""
4. 01:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702189914 by Eperoton Not "sneaking" anything. No consensus was reached on talk page, so feel free to ask for moderation, dispute etc. As I have shown, very willing to participate."
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) to 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Household */ no "traditional sources" mention she had reached puberty. That is WP:SYNTH"
   2. 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Household */ per Talk page, added "secondary source" from BBC stating Mohammed "bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He has edit warred so much that the page is now under full protection. The editor in question is also edit warring on other pages, but this is his most blatant disregard for rules. Furthermore the page in question is subject to discretionary sanctions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I fear there are several errors in the report. Of course FreeatlastChitchat is right in pointing out that the article has been placed under full protection, but that is not one user's fault. Sure, User:Trinacrialucente can be partly blamed. So can I, for that matter. So can User:FreeatlastChitchat himself as well as four-five other users. However, these points are relevant
  1. Several users, including User:Trinacrialucente (and myself) performed more three edits, but not the same edits. Quite the contrary, intensive editing and intensive discussions and agreements and compromises on the talk page was bringing the matter. Editing an article many times a day is not forbidden.
  2. I regret to say that while User:Trinacrialucente was active in discussing the matter, the reporter did not partake in the discussion of this matter and instead swept in to remove the consensus that had been established, including restoring a source everybody agreed was not WP:RS and, worse, both removing tags everybody agreed on and restoring claims that was not found in any of the sources. Key to preventing edit warring is discussing the matter, as many users did, including User:Trinacrialucente but not User:FreeatlastChitchat (this surprised me a bit, as User:FreeatlastChitchat is usually very good at taking part in talk page discussions).
  3. Apparently no warning of 3RR was given to User:Trinacrialucente.

So in short, I suggest this report be closed. Nobody violated 3RR, the reported user did take part in an active discussion, the reporter (who also edit warred) neither warned the user nor took part in the discussion. We should all, myself included, have used talk pages even more and edited less, but no 3RR was broken. Jeppiz (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz I wanted to discuss this matter on the TP, but the article was going through a tsunami of edits. How to discuss when the article is so unstable with one version being replaced by another. My two reverts were to versions which were "stable" as I pointed out. I never said they were "good versions". Whenever an edit war erupts its best to revert to a pre editwar version and go from there. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat Sure, I can understand your reaction even though I think discussing it would have been better. I'm not blaming anyone here, just pointing out that we're all a bit guilty and that nobody did anything blockable. Jeppiz (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected three days by User:Ymblanter. In any case, the reverts listed above span more than 24 hours. It is possible that a longer period of full protection may be necessary. It is hard to imagine real article improvement taking place while so much turmoil is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. And the sad truth is very little "real article improvement" has been taking place at all, as certain users have been holding the article hostage by demanding "consensus" before ANY content can be changed...which they have absolutely no interested in achieving because they prefer the original edits. The only way any substantive, objective changes can be made at this point is with outside oversight (i.e. moderation) unfortunately. If you look at the changes leading up to this block, you'll see exactly what I mean (I and several other users were engaged in a substantive conversation/debate/edit and had reached compromise and consensus, when one of the aforementioned "factions" reverted the page to the pre-conversation version. This has been the unfortunate M.O.).Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, User:EdJohnston - Thank you for protecting the article, but I have every reason to believe that the only effect that protection will have is to delay the edit-warring by three days. The purpose of protecting an article that is being edit-warred is supposed to be, if I recall, to force the edit-warriors to discuss, but the edit-warriors have unfortunately shown at DRN and on the talk page that they have no intention of discussing in an orderly manner. They engage in name-calling, such as the above argument that the article is "being held hostage". Muslim editors have even made the bizarre demand that a special Muslim arbitration committee be given ownership of the article; fortunately, this demand was hatted. One editor says that outside oversight (i.e., moderation) is necessary, but, in my opinion, too many editors are of mindsets that will not support moderation. I think that topic-bans may be needed. The subject of Muhammad is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions precisely because this attitude of hostility has been going on for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is of course a difficult and tricky situation, but there is very little we can do. The article is indefinitely semi-protected (I will restore the protection once the full protection expires). If autoconfirmed editors behave disruptively, and even DRN has no effect, arbitration enforcement and eventually arbcom should be attempted. But if there is a continuous edit warring between established editors, one can not expect that a typical admin patrolling 3RRN or ANI will easily make a correct decision, since the history goes back for years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a difficult and tricky situation. DRN very seldom has any effect on disruptive editors; it only works with editors who can be persuaded to collaborate. DRN volunteers will fail ArbCom is not needed. ArbCom has already heard the case, and has already put discretionary sanctions in effect; what may be needed may be arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In case other admins are looking at this dispute and wondering what can be done, a recent comment by User:Jeppiz may give some background. After explaining the problem, he suggests a general 1RR at Muhammad plus a 500-30 restriction. Since the whole article is under Discretionary sanctions due to the Muhammad images case, this is within admin discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Terabar reported by User:Ekvastra (Result: Blocked)

Page

Suicide of Rohith Vemula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702761862 by Ekvastra (talk) Do we have to mention the Colour of his body too? What do you mean by adding his caste non-sense?"
2. 10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 702617738 by Terabar (talk): No meaning to add the caste non-sense. Restore sourced content, . (TW)"
3. 12:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 702477766 by Terabar (talk): Remove Caste nonsense and restore sourced content. . (TW)"
4. 20:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Remove Caste Non-sense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) "/* 3rr warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Suicide_of_Rohith_Vemula#Terbar_reverts
2. He seems to have a strong bias against the organization ABVP and has flooded the talk page with their criticism (which belongs on the organizations page).

Comments:

First he edit warr`ed to introduce the caste as Dalit. When new reports contradicted it he wanted to purge the topic itself. I kept his most recent two content addition (which are letter-by-letter copy paste) by paraphrasing them without removing his references. But he has reverted them too. His sole interest has been this article since Jan 21. He has been blocked for edit warring one month back only. Ekvastra (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Let the admin check whether there is any violation or not. He is a new user who is not familiar with Wikipedia rules.Regarding the edits he changes some words, changed the meaning of sentences and added unnecessary tags even where the source was present to suit his own POV. For example here. There was an allegation made by right wing extremist terrorist group ABVB that their leader was attacked by Rohith (the guy who did suicide). I presented a source where the medical reports said that there was no attack done. See The attack on ABVB leader has been proved false by medical reports and Is ABVB leader lying? Firstly he said that I can add it in the article.

He said "You may add the sources that you prefer and present this point of view but other secondary sources are equally valid and you may not purge the entire incident." See his statement And when I added it. He removed it by saying that its over dramatic. See here He then started edit warring on Caste saying that he does not belong to Dalit caste and removing the properly sourced content over here. Terabar (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken Terabar, I never deleted your reference but only paraphrased content keeping your references. Encyclopedic articles should be in neutral tone. Your narration gives undue weight due to its elaborate and melodramatic copy of original report. You should paraphrase it to avoid copyvio and improve readability. And you should not remove every mention of referenced content that does not fall in line with your POV. The content that you are trying to suppress is well sourced and subject of more than four secondary references. --Ekvastra (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Come on! Stop lying. You didn't delete the reference? See Terabar (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) .

No sir, the reference has not been deleted, only the content is paraphrased, please check the diff you have provided. --Ekvastra (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That URL was inserted wrong by me. Anyway, you deleted it. See and then restored it back. Was it a test? Terabar (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir, I have mentioned in the edit summary I will add your recent addition with due weight. and hence I had added back your content with your reference with paraphrasing. I had to undo because you had reverted large chunks and it was simpler to undo and then re-insert your latest addition. You see I did not purge your reference or content here also. --Ekvastra (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop addressing me as "sir" and pretending to be like a victim. I don't like someone calling me as "sir". Regarding the edit which you claim that he was not a Dalit has been disproved by many sources. His original caste certificate says that. Rohith Vemula's Birth Certificate Says He Was A Dalit. So stop confusing others. Terabar (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay Terabar, there is no intent to offend. I am not playing victim. What you say is contradicted in sources, we go by what is reported in secondary sources. --Ekvastra (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I added a reference where Police said that Rohith can claim to be of any caste since his parents have different castes. And then you added your own POV by saying that Police is investigating. Even when the police had already verified. AP officials verify Rohith's caste This proves that you changed the meaning of content to suit your own POV. Terabar (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your content and reference remain. Multiple newer source say it is under investigation. You keep deleting them. Just hear what I am saying! --Ekvastra (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My content remains? What? You deleted it Terabar (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that Terabar has reverted 22 times in the last eleven days at Suicide of Rohith Vemula. Somebody whose edits were supported by consensus would not have to keep restoring his changes over and over when others remove them. In my opinion a three-day block of User:Terabar would be appropriate. He was previously blocked for edit warring per a December 30 complaint on this board, about the Dalit Buddhist movement. The pattern suggests he may have trouble editing neutrally wherever Dalits are involved. POV editing on Indian issues also raises concerns under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I understand that I have made so many edits on that article. I even presented reliable sources where ever it could be possible. I have not made any claim without any evidence or reliable source. You can check that in history of that article and also on above discussion. I have always tried to discuss on talk page of that article. I claimed that Rohith Vemula's Birth Certificate Says He Was A Dalit . Even then it was was removed by him saying that he was not a Dalit even after his original caste certificate says that. He presented new sources.

"And why we both were fighting a caste war that whether he was a Dalit or not? Wasn't he a human first? Wasn't he a son of a mother who is right now admitted in hospital due to chest pain ? She must be crying. Aren't we human? I hope that we can stop this caste war. ABVP is a group of extremist people who has involved in many attacks on minorities. Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad#Controversies, attacks and vandalism . I did a google search in every possible way to find sources and content to save the reputation of that brave boy who did a suicide. If we can reach on a consensus without edit warring then it would be good. I had some strong emotional feelings for that innocent boy who did a suicide. So I am sorry If I supported humanity. You own the power to block me and I can't do anything about it. I hope that you can understand my pain. Terabar (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days for long-term edit warring on this article. See my rationale above. Terabar has made 22 reverts in 11 days on a topic where the editor can't seem to edit neutrally. I'm also alerting Terabar to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

IP users removing sourced content (Result: )

(I'm not 'reporting' anyone, but merely asking for advice) - While the talk page is always the best option, this can prove difficult when dealing with IP users who may have valid points, but do not respond to posts or messages. Does the 3RR count when IP users fail to communicate while persistently removing sourced content? Surely someone's failure to communicate cannot be their green light to remove whatever they want. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view, all reverts count, from IP users as well as registered users. Just be sure that you notify the IP editor of the AN3 filing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a lie. In EdJohnston's view, reverts by registered users of anonymous edits don't count: 4 reverts in 25 minutes "isn't a 3RR violation" and doesn't even warrant a warning.[42] 84.53.70.94 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I am not sure how I'm supposed to deal with this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to give you an answer unless you tell us where the dispute is. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just revert away. Also, leave the ip messages making false claims. Like, if they left an edit summary, leave a template saying they made an unexplained removal of content. Things like that. Quickly they will get irritated and probably call you an idiot or a moron or something, and then a friendly admin can block them and you have free rein to edit as you like. This kind of behaviour has been explicitly endorsed and encouraged by User:EdJohnston. 148.122.187.2 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

List of wars involving Nigeria and List of wars involving South Africa. He may have valid points, but as long as there's no way to communicate, I really don't know what I'm supposed to do. I've probably broken the 3RR too. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:5.69.3.92 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

And She Was (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 04:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "rv per WP:OWN: "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page""
5. 04:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "rv misunderstanding; details of the composition relevant to lede"
6. 04:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "better"
7. 00:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [46]
2. 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on And She Was. (TW)"
3. 04:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on And She Was. (TW)"
4. [47]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Looks like the user doesn't understand the meaning of consensus, and is clearly WP:NOTHERE, judging by their edit summaries "(Rv vandalism by User:Donner60)", "better", 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) "", etc etc. Just a thought from a third person perspective. Boomer Vial^Holla 05:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ICat Master reported by User:Wikidemon (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702216430
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702400923 / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702465845
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702476448
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478164
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478445
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702683489
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702693159

Comments:

Brand new account, edits only in American presidential election articles, approximately 9RR in 3 days on this article. Requesting indef. block of this SPA throwaway account and likely sock of Mouse001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), itself blocked by User:JzG as a SPA / likely sock.[48] — reporting here as fastest / least drama resolution. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note, there is clear consensus for what I was reverting, and no consensus for what the other editor was reverting to, so my revisions were warranted.ICat Master (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please fight any urge to excuse the editor as misguided and needing guidance about consensus and edit warring — they've clearly been around the block on other accounts here. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Another note, the consensus for my revisions can be clearly seen on the talk page and the reverts on that same content by other editors1234. During the time of those reverts, Wikidemon was the only one opposing the content. Wikidemon and Scjessey were the only ones opposing the content on the subsequent talk page discussion. I do not believe I was misguided about consensus.--ICat Master (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs are a clue as to the possible sock-master but that's beyond the scope of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm lost for words. I dearly hope the administrator will rely upon facts and not alleged implications.--ICat Master (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys(*), this is getting stale. I thought this would be the most efficient place to bring this up, but apparently not. May I kindly ask for some direction on whether it's best to file an SPI or if somebody will take a look at this point? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

* and I mean that in the most gender-neutral way :)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50] Added text "Prior to the 1900s, circumcision was virtually unheard of in Europe for medical reasons."
2. [51] Added text again "Prior to the 1900s, circumcision was virtually unheard of in Europe for medical reasons."
3. [52] Added text a third time "Prior to the 1900s, circumcision was virtually unheard of in Europe for medical reasons."
4. [53] Yobol made this edit[54] and Cirflow reverted it
5. [55] They than added the above text a 4th time "Prior to the 1900s, circumcision was virtually unheard of in Christian Europe for medical or cultural reasons"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] and a few others.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] and the second above.

Comments:

Note: This might be actionable as a 3RR if someone could show that #4 and #5 are actually reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay have added descriptions of the edits User:EdJohnston Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way they have just made another three reverts

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 02:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:81.38.123.50 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 31h)

Page: Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.38.123.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 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]

Have not edited page nor aware of what the correct content should be.

Comments:

Basque Country (autonomous community) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well

Jim1138 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that several users use Wikipedia to make real something that exists only in his imagination. I respect the ideas of everyone, including the separatists, but this encyclopedia can not allow maps of regions of Spain are added as if they were independent countries or nations. That is intolerable.--81.38.123.50 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Can't you see there are several consensuses to use this type of map for the nationalities of Spain, these maps don't indicate these polities are independent countries. I suggest someone to block you because you're being disruptive Masclet~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You keep going against consensus. Why don't you accept the green map? Can't you see this type of map is also used in other subnational entities (for example, Wallonia and Flanders)? Masclet~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:66.87.134.164 (possibly the same as User:Jake Gibson and/or User:86.188.81.185) reported by User:Elwoz (Result: protected)

Page: Bedford Level experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.134.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly the same as Jake Gibson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or 86.188.81.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edited this page to remove references and invert the result of the experiment (i.e. they are making the article read as if the experiment proved the earth to be flat, which is obviously not what happened). Essentially all edits of this page since 6 December 2015 are involved.

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&oldid=693995583

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=693995583 (first minor edit, by User:86.188.81.185)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=701797402 (first major edit, by User:Jake Gibson)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=702026612 (User:Jake Gibson, deleting references)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=702214442 (User:66.87.134.164, making substantially the same edit as User:Jake Gibson did earlier - also note very, very similar edit summary wording)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=702509601 (User:66.87.134.164, repeating an edit that had been reverted by User:Thuresson)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedford_Level_experiment&diff=next&oldid=702662271 (and again)

Warned 66.87.134.164: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.87.134.164&oldid=702935710&diff=prev
Warned Jake Gibson: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_Gibson&oldid=702935970&diff=prev
(I may not have done this correctly; the documentation of this part of the process is exceedingly unclear.)

Talk page discussion - neither 66.87.134.164 nor Jake Gibson seems interested in participating: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABedford_Level_experiment&type=revision&diff=702878080&oldid=670979371

Elwoz (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: User has agreed to stop editing the article)

Page: Veganism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following show wholesale reverts; complex, partial reverts; or just inappropriate edits.

• Edit: 07:02, 30 January 2016: changed a sentence that is the subject of an RfC by adding "exploitative kind of"

• 1st revert: 07:06, 30 January 2016: restored "exploitative kind of"

• Edit: 01:18, 31 January 2016: added four low-quality/primary sources that undermined the RfC sentence
• Edit: 01:53, 31 January 2016 (combined diff): removed academic sources that support the RfC sentence
• Edit: 04:24, 30 January 2016, added "especially ones gained from harming the animal"

• 2nd revert: 01:22, 1 February 2016, restored "especially ones gained from harming the animal"
• 3rd revert: 02:19, 1 February 2016, restored "especially ones gained from harming the animal"

• Edit: 04:24, 30 January 2016, changed "animals" to "animal products"

• 4th revert: 02:37, 1 February 2016, restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"

• Edit: 02:51, 1 February 2016 (combined diff), added citation templates to well-formed manual references

• 5th revert: 23:53, 1 February 2016, restored the citation templates; restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"
• 6th revert: 00:20, 2 February 2016, restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"

Comment

Mr. Magoo and McBarker arrived at Veganism on 30 January to respond to an RfC. He is making inappropriate edits; complex, partial reverts; and is making discussion difficult, with over 100 edits to talk between 30 January and 1 February. [61]

He is posting extreme claims about veganism on talk; accusing academic sources of being radical vegans/veganarchists, including several who seem not to be vegans at all; inserting poor sources, including websites of unknown provenance; adding citation templates to well-formed refs against CITEVAR; changing the sentence that's the subject of the RfC; and removing academic sources.

He caused similar problems in October at Political correctness, which triggered several warnings and a block for edit warring. [62] SarahSV ^(talk) 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo's response

Firstly, this is a witch hunt from a sysop and the sysop's few, uh, "abolitionist vegan" tag team editors who disagree with me pointing out that there are no sources for veganism being about commodity status of animals. The sysop pretty much dominates the veganism article. 3 others will most likely appear here to attack me as well. I'll inform other arguers that they can give their opinion of me because they will not appear otherwise as no one but people who want me gone from disagreeing with them even care. (Maybe unnecessary if it's just us two.)

Another disagreer, Martin Hogbin is also being witch-hunted by the group: AN: Martin Hogbin.

The first two edits are completely pointless as I just entered the article without having edited there before and reverted with the explanation of "As it stands, without exploitative it is about veganarchism and not general veganism. You haven't explained anything on talk." Indeed I had explained my position for undoing on talk but the other person hadn't for their undo. In this context my first two edits are completely understandable.

The "low quality" sources are from mainstream veganist organizations. Just look at them for heaven's sake. The sysop immediately reverted me because non-academic sources. Sysop also did not explain on talk when I questioned. Academic is not a must on Wikipedia.

The removal of the "academic sources" was well explained on talk. If you notice, there are sources for "commodity status of animals" without any relation to veganism. The sysop is actually pushing sources like this. This is corruption. In addition, I pointed out that many of the other sources also had no relation. I did not remove the core 3 sources of theirs which are pretty much the only ones they even care to point out on talk because the rest are useless.

The first revert of "especially ones gained from harming the animal" is as you can see not part of an edit war but was restored because it was lost in an edit mess like stated in the description. Only the second is an actual revert which was reverted by the other again, after which I stopped because I did not want to edit war.

The first animal product edit was simply part of the "especially ones gained from harming the animal". Most of the edits of it are just part of the ""especially ones gained from harming the animal". And when I restore it in the second edit of it, I'm not edit warring because that was when "especially ones gained from harming the animal", the fought over edit was removed along with "animal products" which wasn't fought over. I restored "animal products" because they weren't denying it and there was no war over it.

The last times are again part of the citation template disagreement. At no point were me and Viriditas actually disagreeing over animal products on either the article's talk or on my talk. I don't know why it kept disappearing.

The sysop has tried to incriminate me here, pushing for it hard. Many of these edits like I mentioned weren't part of a war but an edit mess. I always stop the revert-escalation quickly because I have learned my lesson from past at Political Correctness. In fact I have argued hard at Political Correctness ever since October but I have not edit warred whatsoever because again, I learned my lesson. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd also want to point out that the sysop warned me to stay away from the lead sentence and its sources. Ever after the warning I did not edit the lead sentence or its sources whatsoever. So the sysop's warning worked and now the sysop is still blaming me for those edits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that on my talk there has been a lengthy discussion about the citation templates featured in the bottom half of the edits. At no point was animal products brought up. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that the sysop had written that certain kinds of pet "ownership" were vegan, like that of rescuing animals over purchasing them. The "animal products" line in question used to say before that "vegans oppose the use of animals for any purpose." I believed there was admin-backed concensus behind "animal products" over that line since the sysop had not reverted even though the sysop usually does, meaning that removal of it was closer to vandalism, but I guess not. I mean the infobox itself states "animal products". There is an article for animal products if you add hyperlinks. In fact my addition of animal products hasn't been reverted? How is this a disruptive edit if no one cares to revert even though they usually revert unwanted stuff instantly? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I swear to never edit the Veganism article again if I'm let off with a warning. I believe I can prove my point on the talk page. No bad talk page behavior was pointed out as you can see. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

During the AN/I discussion about your editing at Political correctness, Fyddlestix wrote that you had made 981 edits to talk between 30 September and 14 November 2015, and were "bludgeoning" the discussion:

He has edit warred, repeatedly refused to assume good faith, and refused to listen - and his conduct in this dispute has made the article measurably worse - the article lede, for example, is a mess of WP:OVERCITE now, because Magoo has taken an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to sourcing his arguments, while writing off high-quality sources that don't support his view (often simply because the author happens to be a liberal or "left-wing" in Msgoo's opinion). [63]

This is a mirror image of what's happening at Talk:Veganism. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He claims things I never did, like blaming anyone "liberal" or "left-wing" — like I responded back then as well. What I did was try to add a political affiliation of "left-wing" and he or someone kept removing it. That's it. That's where that myth comes from. Really credible source there. How would you feel if I pointed out some instance of someone telling lies about you? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact I didn't have to go far for that because you've been warned for edit-warring just a week ago. It still amazes me how you managed to get sysop rights. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems you are very easily amazed. Please stay away from shiny, sparkly things. SV has sysop rights because she earned the trust of the community and has proven that she is one of the finest editors (and sysops) on the site. I'm curious, what have you done during your time here except edit war and cause problems on talk pages? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Where there is corruption I head. I get insulted, hounded, hunted, ganged upon; but I have a thing for a just cause in an unjust world. People like me get listed easily. Just look at how easily this was born. If that last edit hadn't happened there would be zero case here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You've just admitted to having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, which is the vey definition of edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Heh, well, we wouldn't be here if that article weren't a battleground. Are you saying it's not? Seriously, do you not think it's not a battleground? I mean so many people get listed and hunted on there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I have been civil outside of Admin's Noticeboard. Point some instance from the talk where I've been uncivil, please. I can point cases where I've posted an argument but only been followed with an ad hominem. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The listing above shows six reverts over a four-day period, which may show a pattern of long-term edit warring. Especially when combined with a pattern of stubbornness and relentless argumentation. If this is closed with a block, it should be at least three days. Mr. Magoo was previously blocked for edit warring back in October 2015. As you can see from his last unblock discussion he usually defends his point of view with great tenacity. This may also account for the very long ANI threads he has been involved in. If people can't negotiate well, and are unable to win support from others for their views it's hard to see how they can work well on controversial topics. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but two aren't reverts but edit mess fixes. There are also three different matters in all the edits. In addition I've promised never to edit the article again. Also, there have been numerous people who have agreed with my point. Currently the RfC (not started by me) on the Veganism talk page has 10 voting NO and 11 voting YES. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd also, if you may, point out that the article still says "animal products", because there seemed to be some sort of acceptance over it especially because it's right next there in the infobox and there was the rescued pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Martin Hogbin

This is a clear case of page ownership by a small group of editors in which any editor not following the party line is met with incivility, threats and personal attacks.

The group have inisted on an exact form of wording in the first sentence of the lead (currently subject to an RfC) to which they will not allow any change whatsoever, despite the suggestion of a number of altenative and compromise versions by myself and others.

I strongly believe that the way forwards is not threats of sanctions but civil discussion (possibly with a wider range of editors) of the issues involved in which both sides listen to the other and try to understand their view rather than responding with bluff, bluster and threats. Such discussion may be protracted but it should be the way that WP works. I am going to propose that we start this (yes, again) on the talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Closed without a block, per Mr. Magoo's statement above: "In addition I've promised never to edit the article again." But if the edit war resumes, admins may find it necessary to issue blocks or protection. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thank you for dealing with this. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:174.3.33.47 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 24 hrs)

Page

Freemen on the land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "some egoed editors seems to prefer hearsay unsubstantiated opinions and pure propaganda to reality fact and truth."
2. 06:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "changes are done to reflect a more accurate first hand witnessed observation rather than posting hearsay opinions some seem hard hearted to defend"
3. 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "a assuredly more truthful version that the one sided slander and defamation offered by the first poster"
4. 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 05:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "a more detailed and open eyed view as to ensure assumptions and innuendo are not relied upon"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Freemen on the land. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Basically pov vandalism which will continue until the IP is blocked or the page protected. I seriously doubt dialogue will help. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Emeraude (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Soibangla reported by User:Anythingyouwant (Result:Not blocked yet, watching article for continuation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [64], 18:43, Feb. 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65] 19:16, Feb. 2
2. [66] 19:29, Feb. 2
3. [67] 19:37, Feb. 2
4. [68] 19:41, Feb. 2
5. [69] 19:47, Feb. 2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70], 19:41, Feb. 2

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

Comments:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note It has been 5 hours, and the user has stopped for now. Given the timing between the warning and the last revert, it is possible he had not read the warning before that revert. But he's stopped for now. If he returns to edit war again, please ping this report or myself, and I will act if I am available. Otherwise, I will just keep an eye on the article and monitor to see if he's stopped of his own accord, which it looks like he has. Jayron32 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: There's tag-team edit warring on the other side of this, including by OP Anythingyouwant and by @CFredkin: who narrowly missed a block the other day when he agreed to stop edit-warring on Carly Fiorina. The Cruz article is under discretionary sanctions, and I don't think it's a constructive environment without some Admin intervention. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. The "tag team" did not break 3rr, and instead started a talk page discussion that no one else was willing to join. And there was no coordination whatsoever between me and any "tag team".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Anything, you continued to revert after it was clear there was an EW with several editors on your "side" and you stopped only when you were warned on your talk page for personally having reached 3RR. You can't cite an unresolved talk thread as justification for edit warring. That does not move the process toward resolution. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I stopped when I had reverted three times, and happily my third revert stuck. The talk thread was not merely unresolved, it was unanswered.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

More a comment on the article generally than on these reverts in particular -- the article as a whole is rapidly becoming an unconstructive environment. There are frequent edit wars on various issues, usually sub-3RR, but it makes it difficult for those of us who are not interested in edit wars to see what is going on with the article as a whole. If I change X, and someone reverts me (not an edit war, just a simple revert), then both of us have a talk thread about it, doing everything right, it becomes a pain to go through the history later to see what was going on, both of our edits become more difficult to find in all the noise. Likely also a pain for the person reverting me -- as a practical matter, what is more likely in a case like this is that I make an edit, there are four edit warrish changes, which that person has to go through to make sure there are not any actual changes that need to be preserved, then do the revert once they've figured that out. CometEncke (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Happily my 3rd revert stuck" sounds more like a warrior than an editor to me. The issue wasn't resolved. The reason it "stuck" is because others had the sense to back off. To channel an American President, "Happily it stuck" is not the solution, it's the problem. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifico, if you or anyone else would like to respond to the discussion I started at the article talk page, then the matter can be resolved. Boycotting that talk page doesn't seem very productive to me, and that's why I filed this 3rr report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GliderMaven reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Protected)

Page: Comedy of the commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GliderMaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74] (note edit summary)
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]. The warning, given for previous edit warring, was removed here which means the user was fully aware of what they were doing. [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79], [80], [81]

Comments:

I'm a bit at wit's end with this user. They do not seem to understand what original research is. They keep restoring text which is either unsourced or for which the sources do not actually back up the text (except in their own imagination) or which is about something else (except in their own imagination). I'm pretty sure he'll show up here and claim that "Elinor Ostrom got the Noble prize for working on this topic" so let me just preempt that by pointing out that it's complete nonsense (the user does not appear to understand the author's work) as has repeatedly been explained to them. All requests for them to provide a source on talk have been met with obfuscation and more personal opinion and original research (see the diffs above).

The same issue has arisen at Tragedy of the anticommons, and the relevant AfD discussion [82].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that I am fine with the user being warned and told to reach consensus first before restoring unsourced or badly sourced text or text which is off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I also want to note that the user first tried to strike out my comment at the related AfD discussion [83] and then removed it altogether [84], the latter removal done in a sneaky way with a misleading edit summary and overimposing their own comment on top of mine so it'd be harder to notice. I find that particularly obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The user Volunteer Marek is engaged in the worst case of bad faith editing of wikipedia's articles I have ever seen. He reads none of the references, and removes material from the article tagging articles, without reading them, claiming over and over again, that they are 'OR', or 'dubious'. Every single reference. He's also repeatedly removing material from multiple articles under dubious pretexts, and when material is added to an article he raised an AFD on, he deletes it out of hand, he also seems to be gaming the AFD process. Over and over again. Every single edit he has made, ever, to comedy of the commons and related articles is edit warring; literally every single one. He is far and away the worst editor I have ever had the extreme displeasure to engage with on Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He also tried to add a !vote to his own AFD, by convention you should not do that, so I struck it out, with a suitable subject line. He even revert warred that.GliderMaven (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing OR stuff you've tried to insert into these articles, or instances where you either misrepresent sources or are using off-topic sources to "pad" an article (make it look better sourced than it really is). And there's nothing that says I can't make a !vote on an AfD I started, particularly if I'm transparent about it (I said "as nom"). You started screwing around with *MY* comment, striking it, deleting it and yeah, I reverted that nonsense. Messing with other people's comments in a discussion is EXTREMELY rude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, your edits are simply dishonest. Absolutely none, not one little bit of the article is OR. You're systematically removing material because you disagree with it, not because it's unreferenced. Even your !vote is a type of vote stuffing. And you packed the article out with scare tags, even tagging referenced material, to try to give the impression it's all untrustworthy, and you've been edit warring the article to make it worse, every time the article gets improved. Even here you're trying to claim that a Nobel Prize winner got her prize for something other than what she actually did. You are a terrible, terrible, terrible editor.GliderMaven (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I've tried to explain the issues to you several times, patiently and my patience has run out. You're the one who made the threatening edit summaries. You're the one who made personal attacks (on talk, in edit summaries, at the AfD and now here). You're the one who thinks that you know what my motivation is (what is it that I supposedly "disagree with"?). You're the one who promised to "revert as much as is necessary" (or something like that). You're the one who can't differentiate between verifiability and original research. And you're the one who broke 3RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You've done nothing of the sort, you've deleted material, and arbitrarily removed reliable, published, sources if they didn't meet your bizarre narrative. So far as I can tell you've started from the position that the article should be deleted, and have never referred to any source at all, and have only removed material from the article. You've also repeatedly claimed 'OR' but literally there is no OR in the article at all, not a single thing, and there has never been.GliderMaven (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – One week. If consensus for any changes can be found on the talk page, use {{Edit fully protected}} to propose them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:184.167.247.64 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC) (Undid revision 703166070 by Dr.K. (talk))
2. 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Undid revision 703165566 by Dr.K. (talk)
3. 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703150833 by Cplakidas (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703143802 by Cplakidas (talk)"
   2. 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703141469 by Athenean (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC) to 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Factors contributing to the outcome */"
   2. 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Factors contributing to the outcome */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) to 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Turkish massacres of Greeks and Armenians */"
   2. 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Factors contributing to the outcome */"
   3. 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Turkish massacres of Greeks and Armenians */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greco-Turkish War (1919–22). (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding POV material to the article about how glorious Kemal Ataturk was. Will not stop despite warnings. Dr. K. 22:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bishonen | talk 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• No, that was my intention, but Yamaguchi blocked them for 31 hours while I was posting here. The bot won't like this, I bet, sorry! Bishonen | talk 23:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:JustAGal2 (Result: Page protected per RfPP request)

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: [85], [86]

[87] revert of edits restored by JustAGal2

[88] revert of edits by JustAGal2

[89] revert of all compromise edits by Boomer Vial

[90] revert of edits by Boomer Vial

[91] revert of edits by Boomer Vial

[92] revert of edits by Boomer Vial

[93] revert removing citation to settle separate dispute

[94] revert of edits by Pvmoutside

old diffs: [95] [96] [97]

similar to: [98]?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Also viewed other talk page discussions with user, but user rarely seems to compromise [99][100]

Comments: Same edit-warring for 6 years. [101][102] Very bothered by page suppression. Hate dealing with edit-warring, but after reviewing page logs, looks as if the IP keeps returning after several blocks[103] (last one by slakr^\ talk /) to edit-war and push the same excessive, tabloid-like content from 2009 that has since been re-edited to "compromise" from further edit-warring. Reverts made by User: GarnetAndBlack are identical. In tandum, pattern suggests user doesn't simply revert section, but rather, removes "most" proactive edits of numerous editors to suppress more productive contributions (and related articles). Uses similar "vandalism, POV, or old consensus" comments for reverts. All seems related to past edit-warring from [104] [105]. JustAGal2 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Request page restoration to [106] or [107] by Boomer Vial (talk) and possible page protection as well? JustAGal2 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the page following a request by Boomer Vial on RfPP. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 reported by User:K!lluminati (Result: Warned)

Page: Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:40, 3 February 2016 Added in Edit summary «http://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Yemen-700x460.jpg http://media.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Yemen-Map.png Stop !!!»
2. 16:30, 3 February 2016 Added in Edit summary «Out dated and POV Pushing.»
3. 13:57, 3 February 2016 Added in Edit summary «POV. The source is serious».
4. 11:55, 3 February 2016 Added in Edit summary «Masdar»

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109] [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111] and a few others.

Comments:

• This user edits template map without mention any sources & web news link & revision others edits to rely on fake & false one picture (that is visible in above); when be asked him/her that explains on verification & accuracy it & reference of pic's preparation says in response: "POV Pushing or you are saboteur! or Pro-Houthi!" i tried to inculcate him/her that self-made map (Pic) provided based on which sources? & which news link? and that should not be used from fabricated maps for edit and should not be taked ispiration therefrom for change in template map, but to no avail. I demand, in the event of discretion; be ordered to being page under Temporary Semi-Protection for reducing vandalism.

By the way he/she has done similar this behavior in past & violated three-revert rule (3RR) on 31 January 2016

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]

Regards. K!lluminati (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Warned Comment To me there appears to be a content dispute. I've put a note on each of your talk pages to see this post, and have warned Panam2014 for a technical 3RR and that he or she will be blocked if this happens again in the near future. Rather than warn each other and try to get another blocked for 1.5 - 2 days try to hash it out. If that fails seek dispute resolution and if that fails or it escalates whilst trying to work it out then seekpage protection; although I think it can be worked out as there's been no immediate activity since you each warned one another. Take to the talk page of the module in dispute and work it out. NJA (t/c) 09:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is too false. The problem is in the module not in template. Kiluminati could be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. It removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. I gave a source. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nezi1111 reported by User:Aqwfyj (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

Russell Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nezi1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly edit warring with multiple users/making disruptive edits to Russell Wilson (and multiple other pages based on his post history) aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

i was open to discussing(still am). but you just vanished after me making my last point. where were you?Nezi1111 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Btw, this is the main reason he's reporting me: the issue of highlighting the fact that is Russel Wilson multiracial. I tought it fairly straight forward since his(Wilson's) literal quote on the subject is I'm mixed man! I've got a little bit of everything. Here's the interview of the video where he states it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlLSuKxhZ4&t=2m48s

he wants to censor it. Nezi1111 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

also, odd that i can resolve issues with other users(ex:Luizengmec) via talk pages, but not with user User:aqwfyj. Nezi1111 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User is disregarding a WP:RFC on the talk page and is now accusing me of being a racist. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 01:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Third block to this editor for edit warring, so escalating time. User also showed clear disregard for 3RR and intent to continue edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:204.195.144.134 reported by User:64.134.64.190 (Result: Semi)

Page: Yitzhak Aharon Korff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(I previously reported this situation here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removal_of_well-sourced_information_.28such_as_person.27s_legal.2Fbirth_name.29_.2F_edit_warring_.28.3F.29 but apparently I should have just reported it here (?) Hopefully I did this properly.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=703336563&oldid=703335581
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=703333513&oldid=703322236
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=prev&oldid=703333513
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=prev&oldid=667370736

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:204.195.144.134#Edit_warring_Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff_and_ex-wife_Shari_Redstone

Talk page: Talk:Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff#Please_refrain_from_removing_his_birth.2Flegal_name_.2B_source.28s.29

Comments:
I am reporting user 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs). That user has (more than once) removed the birth name/legal name of Ira Korff/Yitzhak Aharon Korff.

Removed sourced information, such as that Korff's book was published by The Jewish Advocate:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=prev&oldid=703334509

Some of the things 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs) has done: removed a category (Category:Redstone family), deleted sources, falsely inserted "Yitzchok A. Korff" as Ira Korff's name/deleted "Ira Korff" as his legal/birth name, deleted sources I added that back up that "Ira Korff" is the person's name, inserted unsourced information/claims repeatedly. User 204.195.144.134 is deleting important basic information. If you take a look at the edit history of Yitzhak Aharon Korff, you will see that this has been happening over and over and over again over a long period of time (with other users and/or other user names/users who are apparently religious followers of Korff?). Also- no source says that "Yitzchok A. Korff" is Ira Korff's birth/legal name: not one. I took time to find sources. It's not right to delete a person's actual name and background (Redstone family) from Wikipedia and also give apparently disingenuous edit summaries such as here.

Also, user 204.195.144.134 re-added the honorific "Rabbi"/"Grand Rabbi" titles that I had deleted. (You can see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_titles)

User 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs) is removing sourced info from Shari Redstone's article. She is the wife of Yitzhak Aharon Korff.

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shari_Redstone&diff=prev&oldid=703338330
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shari_Redstone&diff=prev&oldid=703329876

And this is my version of the Yitzhak Aharon Korff Wikipedia article including his name (Ira) and sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&oldid=703322236

In conclusion, the user 204.195.144.134 is erasing well-sourced birth name/legal name of Korff, erasing Korff's past (marriage, association with the Redstone family) and edit-warring.

Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached on the talk page on what name to use for this man. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sumi182 reported by User:142.105.159.60 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Craig Busch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sumi182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]
5. [120]
6. [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Comments:
Just reporting the user after seeing this on AN/I142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. This looks to be a single-purpose account whose sole mission is to remove a block of text from the Craig Busch article, which they have done seven times since mid-January. The edit summaries are strange: 'Reverted as I was instructed'. The text being removed is properly sourced. An unblock might be considered if they can explain what's going on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zmenglish reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

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

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

• Before first edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]
6. [128]
7. [129]

Also: see edit summaries used

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

1. EW-Soft
2. EW

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

• [130]

Comments:
There also appears to be a number of WP:SPA IPs involved, including:

1. 131.220.153.86
2. 129.26.88.95

EW (since mid December 2015) revolves around an image. Numerous editors (uninvolved and the uploader of the original image) have reverted this user's changes to what appears to be a long-standing image. Well established alternatives have been offered (see Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism) yet user continued to replace own (uploaded) image.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring to insert a specific image into the Afro article. This editor didn't get any support on the talk page for his version but is continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:PutItOnAMap and User:Khalifa trooper reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Protected)

Page: Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PutitOnAMap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He continue the edit war. It uses spurious arguments to remove changes that do not please him.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]

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

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

Comments:

@NJA: This dispute is about the same map as in a case you recently closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Khalifa trooper has continued the edit war while a more recent source said the city was retaken by loyalists. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. It appears there is a problem with whether changes are sourced. Please discuss on the talk page and agree on what sources are adequate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:61.12.41.67 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 14:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Clampi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP reverting multiple editors to insert unsourced WP:OR Scr★pIron^IV 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked --slakr^\ talk / 05:18, 6 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)

Previous version reverted to

[132]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, February 5, 2016‎ "Accreditation removed as it not necesrrary for this page."
2. 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "Why do you need word accreditation. Just leave it as it is."
3. 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "I am one of administrator of this university and it is accredited by BPPVE. What is your problem"
4. 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "http://www.bppe.ca.gov/schools/accredited_institutions.shtml Check this"
5. 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "Accredited by state"
6. 15:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "State approved institution"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on California University of Business and Technology. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [133]

Comments:

As noted in one of the edit summaries above, this editor has not only persisted in edit warring with multiple editors but he or she also has a clear and admitted COI. Multiple editors have left messages for him or her about edit warring and COI policies but he or she has not once edited a Talk page. (Note also that this article has a bit of a history with new SPAs making these same edits; these may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the same editor.) ElKevbo (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked --slakr^\ talk / 05:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aveouva092 reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: 1 week)

Page

Air India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aveouva092 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
2. 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
3. 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
4. 15:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
5. 13:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary. (WT)"
2. 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (WT)"
3. 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (WT)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous unexplained mass changes to Air India destinations as well which were reverted by another user. Warnings and notification to use edit summaries ignored. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of 1 week by Only. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aqwfyj reported by User:WillsonSS3 (Result: )

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

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillsonSS3 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [140]

Comments:
User:Aqwfyj is continuously reverting to unsourced material and has been engaged in numerous edit wars[141] regarding Russel Wilson's ethnicity since 2014. WillsonSS3 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The user who has reported me is removing sourced and/or uncontroversial material across Wikipedia. He is removing material that is sourced in other sections of the article, and this appears to be retaliation for my addressing his disruptive editing. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 16:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This user is now edit warring on my talk page as well. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 17:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I just re added the noticeboard you removed.

1. [142] first removal
2. [143] second removal

WillsonSS3 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JJDoolan reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [144] (this appears to be roughly what JJDoolan reverted to originally)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[145] (December)
2. [146] (December)
3. [147] (December)
4. [148] (February, with a mass of individual reverts)
5. [149] (February)
6. [150] another revert since this report was made
7. [151] and another

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152] (December) and [153] (February)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154] and [155]

Long-term edit warrior and single-purpose account, who has systematically removed or de-emphasised current coverage and statements of doubt that led to an overturned conviction in favor of uncritical accounts of the investigation from Jim Crow era South Carolina. This has been happening on and off since October. They appear to be trying to re-argue the facts of the case. Three reverts in December and two (in aggregate) in February. No edits to any other subject, limited engagement on talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent post to talkpage [156] after the latest revert indicates a little engagement, offset by implication that disagreement is vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The line "At trial, Stinney denied confessing to the crime." is not disagreement, it's a lie which somehow got edited into the page. You are preserving lies in the article by reverting my perfectly good edits. You are also mischaracterizing my good small edits which were all explained in the edit comment as "reverting" when in fact it is my edits being reverted at this point in time. JJDoolan (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have disagreed with your edits. You are welcome to discuss them and participate in the consensus-driven editing process that is expected on Wikipedia. What you cannot do is repeatedly revert to your preferred version, as you have done. You've reverted four times in the last 24 hours, which is a bright-line breach of WP:3RR. This comment [157] appears to be emblematic of a tendency toward treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I have incorporated some of your cconcerns into the article, and don't mind doing more if you are willing to engage constructively. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not reverted anyone's edits to the article. I made 15 small edits which were all sourced and explained, which you blanket reverted without discussion. As yet nobody has articulated a particular issue with any of the edits I made. We should work together from the point where my edits were applied, instead of throwing all my work in the garbage without justification.JJDoolan (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to beat a dead horse, but we should be clear about this, because I suspect that JJDoolan will repeat his/her behavior after the block lifts, and we may be referring back to this discussion: this controversy arose when JJDoolan made this edit, reverting 57 intermediate revisions by 19 users, representing three months of work, as pointed out on the talk page. It is completely disingenuous to say "I did not revert anyone's edits". TJRC (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from mostly-uninvolved editor: I'm the editor who opened the article talk page discussion back in December, which JJDoolan subsequently ignored, again editing the article to his/her preferred format, rather than attempt to reach consensus as requested.

None of the edits reverted by JJDoolan are mine, and I have no opinion on the merits of his/her individual edits. Other than reversion of vandalism and the JJDoolan edits under discussion here, my edits to the article are minor and peripheral, and from almost a year ago, involving a proposed film that never was made. However, I strongly object to his/her attempt to WP:OWN the article, and to insist on his/her version of it over that of the several editors whose work he/she discards, with the flippant comment If any of the lost edits have valuable information please add them individually. This behavior is completely contrary to WP:5P4 and in particular WP:Consensus. It's actions like this that drive off other good editors. I'm hopeful that JJDoolan will begin working productively with the other editors as a result of this discussion.

I thank Acroterion for opening this AN discussion. TJRC (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. JJDooley broke WP:3RR on 6 February, after a slow edit war over several months. It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who continues to revert while they are aware that an edit warring report is open. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Page protected )

Page: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&diff=703513438&oldid=703513169
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&diff=703576019&oldid=703575957
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&diff=703620824&oldid=703616426
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&diff=703628165&oldid=703624969

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&diff=703630614&oldid=703628768 (I suggested he self-revert, after which he invited me to make a report.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Bingham%2C_7th_Earl_of_Lucan&type=revision&diff=703630809&oldid=703623812 Comments:

I've attempted to cite the accessibility guidelines in all of my changes and arguments - even dropped the more subjective column width change - but Parrot of Doom simply either gives no feedback or accuses me of editing to personal preference without showing any supporting guidelines of his own. There seem to be ownership issues here, as there are several other editors on the page in question's talk page who have run into similar problems with Parrot of Doom. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would just like to add that his "shove it" or "Go F*** yourself" are not very helpful to resolve issues. 68.19.8.173 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his civil reply to my required notification can be seen here. --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a simple way to avoid being told to "go fuck yourself". Don't template the regulars would be one and don't be a dick would be another. I've now watch listed the Bingham article and if I see you behaving the same way, I'll be reverting you too. Cassianto^Talk 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon? I was in no way a "dick", and the template I placed on his talk page was required by the AN rules (and therefore exempt from the "don't template the regulars" essay, anyway). --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI doesn't require someone to use templates, only for them to be told. Just so you know for the future. Cassianto^Talk 20:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and duly noted. I don't see why it's an issue, though. It's the process suggested right on the page. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an issue as it pisses people off. Nobody really likes being taken to a dramah board at the best of times, but being patronisingly templated about it just throws petrol on the fire. Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected Page full-protected for 3 days, or when everyone agrees on what state the article should be left in, whichever happens sooner. Thrash it out on the talk page folks, and, in the words of Sergeant Wilson, would you all mind not telling each other to fuck off, that would be awfully nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:114.64.251.196 reported by User:Drmargi (Result: blocked for one week)

Page: And Then There Were None (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.64.251.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703308928
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703442325
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703451486
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703500645
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703523928
6. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=703525305
7. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703527121
8. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703527910
9. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703528925
10. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703529658
11. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703530838
12. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703531183
13. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703634678
14. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703636884
15. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=And_Then_There_Were_None_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=703637108

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Comments:
What do we have to do to stop this guy? He IP hops in the 114.64.251.192-197 range, edit wars, throws insults, tells other editors that, "it's not for you to determine" if article content is inappropriate (just him), justifies edit warring by claiming editors have a grudge agains hime, ignores attempts to discuss on the talk pages of various articles, and seems to generally be lacking in both competence and English mastery to edit here. If challenged, he demands the other editor justify removal of his edits, but has no grasp of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MOS-TV and a whole host of basic editorial policies. User:MelanieN attempted to give him some guidance, but had little success, resulting in several pages being protected. The edit war noted above, which spans just over 24 hours, is the latest of several, notably on Endeavour, and Foyle's War (series 1). --Drmargi (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This user is also causing problems on Agatha Christie's Marple. Just thought I'd say. Theoosmond (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Lengthy duration set given the stubbornness of the edit warring: I suspect a shorter block would result in this person picking up the stick again. I hope that this sends the message that this conduct is not acceptable. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D. The person has also edited from 114.64.251.194 (talk · contribs) this IP today. It is inactive at the moment but if they start up there may we ping you about it? MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: yes, please do Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:77.103.218.108 reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: blocked, though not necessarily for edit warring)

Page

Ravidassia religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

77.103.218.108 (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 00:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) to 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Added corrections"
   2. 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Places of worship */"
   3. 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Scriptures */"
   4. 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   5. 00:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Leaders */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) to 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Worship service (Arti) */"
   2. 00:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   3. 01:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Places of worship */"
   4. 01:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Objectives */"
   5. 01:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Places of worship */"
   6. 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Leaders */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ravidassia religion. (TW)"
2. 05:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Dera Sach Khand. (TW)"
3. 04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ravidassia religion. (TW)"
4. 19:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ravidassia religion. (TW)"
5. 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Ravidassia religion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ravidassia_religion&diff=703689895&oldid=693332522

Comments:

Seems to be POV-pushing, hasn't responded to warning messages on User talk:77.103.218.108 requesting a discussion on the matter. User:Ms Sarah Welch has requested page protection at [161], also editing/reverting on Dera Sach Khand Chrisw80 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for repeated insertion of unverified information, since this isn't really edit warring. Kindly be more precise in what you report and where you report it. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 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: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]
5. [167]
6. [168]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]. Previous, albeit recent, warnings about edit warring: [170] by User:Nick-D, and [171] by User:Zozoulia. Here is a warning to Solntsa90 about stalking and harassment [172]

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 [173] 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 [174] an edit I've made previously [175]. 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: [176]. Less than an hour later, Solntsa90 shows up to disagree with me [177]. 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 [178] (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" [179].

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 [180] 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": [181]. 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" [182], 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: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)

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

[183]

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: [184]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [185]
2. [186]
3. [187]
4. [188]
5. [189]
6. [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [192]

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 [193] and edit warring [194] 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. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]

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

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: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206]

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: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: [207]. 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: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: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]
5. [213]
6. [214]
7. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216], [217], [218]

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.[219] 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."[220]

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.[221] 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,[222] 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: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: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [224]
2. [225]
3. [226]
4. [227]
5. [228]
6. [229]
7. [230]
8. [231]
9. [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

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, [235], 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: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239]
4. [240]
5. [241]

Also removed speedy deletion notices from Pablo Hernan Pereyra

1. [242]
2. [243]
3. [244]

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)