Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 2 February 2016 (→User:Terabar reported by User:Ekvastra (Result: ): Long-term edit warring by User:Terabar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

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: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: ]//

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

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. 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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages policy. This is apparently not the first time that he has unilaterally made deletions from an existing Misplaced Pages article that relates to Israel and/or Jews. I therefore request that his deletes from this current article be reverted until a proper Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (3 reverts here)
2. (1 revert here, under account 71.174.172.185)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• 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

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/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702216430
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702400923 / https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702465845
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702476448
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478164
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478445
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702683489
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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. — 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)

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

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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:Terabar reported by User:Ekvastra (Result: )

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

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:81.38.123.50 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )

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:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )

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.

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. SarahSV 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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring