Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive306

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:CFredkin reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)[edit]

Page
History of the Russo-Turkish wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Metduran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 ScrpIronIV 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 (talkcontribs) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

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 )[edit]

Page
Billy the Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Shootseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)[edit]

Page: Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.95.7.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)[edit]

Page
Mitsubishi Magna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CtrlXctrlV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: )[edit]

Page: Template:Metal Gear chronology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TJD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)[edit]

Page
Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
GirlForTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  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)[edit]

Page
Santiago de Compostela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
83.49.183.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

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)[edit]

Page
Will Horton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aliveness Cascade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)\
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Rpo.castro (Result: )[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  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)[edit]

Page
Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Trinacrialucente (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)[edit]

Page
Suicide of Rohith Vemula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Terabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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: )[edit]

(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)[edit]

Page
And She Was (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
5.69.3.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 VialHolla 05:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours MusikAnimal talk 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ICat Master reported by User:Wikidemon (Result: )[edit]

Page: Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ICat Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 · edit 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)[edit]

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

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by another admin --slakrtalk / 02:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:81.38.123.50 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 31h)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 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)[edit]

Page: Bedford Level experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.134.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (possibly the same as Jake Gibson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and/or 86.188.81.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected --slakrtalk / 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Page: Veganism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk ·