Page:The Order of the Stick (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:151.30.108.20 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[6]

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

Comments:

I strongly suspect this IP editor isAmatulic editing while logged out. They appear to have edited from other IPs.PeterTheFourth (talk)10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, looking into it more, probably just misguided. My bad.PeterTheFourth (talk)10:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding that the user was also edit-warring over the same content onRich Burlew before moving it to this article.73.168.15.161 (talk)11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm not Amatulic. It's just a case where there's a dispute and he (among another IP editor and another user called Diego Moya) is agreeing with me because my section doesn't conflict with Wikipedia Rules.— Precedingunsigned comment added by151.30.108.20 (talk)11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Um, that IP address is in Italy. I'm in the United States. And I'm always logged in. In the 10 years I've been here, I have probably made just a handful of edits while inadvertently logged off. ~Amatulić(talk)03:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Yeah, that was very boneheaded of me.PeterTheFourth (talk)04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's an user calledEladynnus (talk) who is antagonizing the section that was added for no apparent reasons. He's known for insulting people, basing on his talk page *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eladynnus#WARNING.21_Your_insults_on_my_talk_page

I have explained my reasons for wanting the article removed several times now, but this IP editor continues to claim that the matter has been settled and everyone else agrees with him; seeTalk:The_Order_of_the_Stick#Aggressive_IP_editor for examples. As for Tamsier, he was an editor with very strong views who was banned from Wikipedia in 2012 and 2015 for his bad behavior, which included attacking others (that link is actually a pretty mild example of what he would say to others).Eladynnus (talk)14:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say this deserves aWP:BOOMERANG for edit warring towardsPeterTheFourth andEladynnus, either as a warning or short block, as a reminder that experienced users are not themselves exempt from edit warring policy, and thatWP:AGF andWP:BITE are still policies - so they should know better than engage inthis behavior towards who is likely a newcomer. The IP wouldn't have made so many reverts if Peter and Eladynuss hadn't performed a cumulative count of at least six reverts in the last 24 hours,[8][9][10][11][12][13] with several more two days ago, over a section that is stillunder discussion, with several editors on each side; and that veterans should know better than attempting toWP:GAME the system by trying to getWP:THERIGHTVERSION in place while they ban their conversation partner while carefully keeping within the letter ofWP:EW while batantly breaking its spirit. There is no deadline, and there are no BLP concerns on this case, so properly educating a newcomer editor who has a good disposition to create content should get a higher priority than getting their preferred outcome by turning the article into aWP:BATTLEGROUND. If the section needs to be finally deleted, it should be because there's a consensus at the talk page for it, not because some editors coordinated to have it their way.Diego (talk)15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If that is an appropriate punishment, then fine. This IP editor is almost certainly not new, however. A Milanese IP editor has been editing the Rich Burlew article since May of 2015, starting with a series of vandalisms (1,2,3), which resulted in the article being temporarily locked (here). After the article was unlocked, he began writing the section in question (here), which another IP editor attempted to remove a few days laterhere. Since then, five editors, including myself, have removed the section from the Rich Burlew page for various reasons, and at no point has he shown much interest in our motivations or the policies that are cited.Eladynnus (talk)17:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've got nothing to do with those edits. Those are just some old nonsensical edits did from the same IP range, but not mine. You should try to avoid making defamatory assumptions like those and, instead, trying to help improve the article as Diego Moya did. Thanks.— Precedingunsigned comment added by151.30.108.20 (talk)17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem like much of a stretch to guess that someone with the same writing style as you, from the same city, and who has the same interest in Burlew's forum comments about gay characters in his comic, is the same person, but that is not the main point of the comment. Did you read any other part of them, or actually look at my complaints on the OotS page? It seems like you are avoiding the substance of any criticisms of the section in question, your behavior, and have not read any relevant Wikipedia policies.Eladynnus (talk)20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I do feel, however, that I didn't behave appropriately when I continued to make revertions after it was clear that the IP editor was not going to allow the section to be removed. For what it's worth, I am sorry.Eladynnus (talk)20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone who edits the biography of Rich Burlew adding "Mona" (whatever that means) has my same writing style or shares my ideas. It appears you're trying to blame me for something i didn't do just because you don't like the section I've wrote. I think it's worthless further discussing because, while being not certainly seettled, the matter is that the sources of that section are acceptable according to wikipedia rules and you andPeterTheFourth forced me to do many reverts to it. I'll probably try improve the section in the future while keeping it at bay in terms of length. Have a good evening.

• More the reason to engage in explanations of the finer points of policies, rather than using them as bludgeoning weapons. The IP did not have a disruptive behaviour atThe Order of the Stick, and was reacting favourably to my comments, participating in the discussion.Diego (talk)21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel that I and others have discussed policy in a clear and cogent way, but the IP editor has not shown that is he willing to listen, compromise, or respond to criticism. None of the comments he's left in this discussion have been about his own behavior, and he has not explained why he wrote deceptive edit summaries on the Rich Burlew and OotS pages. He accuses others of making up policy or having no reason to be against including the section at all (1,2,3). All of his comments boil down to "I'm right and you're wrong" or "this person agrees with me," and is a good example ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I worry that there will be more disruptive editing regardless of the outcome of the discussion on the talk page because the IP editor has expressed reluctance to allowing any change to this section (1,2, also seethis edit summary where he calls it "my section").Eladynnus (talk)09:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You just resorted to revert my edits without giving any practical reason other than acting that you were some sort of authority. That's the reason i had to revert so many times the section. Seeing your history in wikipedia (be your talk page or your contribution page) i see that you're not new to this kind of behavior. I see you're used to delete entire sections giving only a tiny "explanation", especially towards ip editors treating them like second-class users. I think this kind of behavior is highly disruptive and not constructive at all. There won't be any more "disruptive editing" because, instead of what you did, the other editors are trying to address me to do a better job improving the article and i'm actively discussing with them on the talk page while you're showing anything but hostility towards me. I find it really annoying, at this point.— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.220.4.45 (talk)13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Three months of semiprotection for bothThe Order of the Stick andRich Burlew. It's reasonable to believe that the following Milan-area IPs are all operated by the same editor: 151.30.41.252, 151.30.68.126, 151.30.108.20, 91.220.4.45. Conducting an edit war with multiple IPs or accounts is disruptive and blockable underWP:SOCK. The single IP named in this report broke 3RR on Aug 17 as shown by the four diffs. TheRich Burlew article has needed semiprotection twice since July, the last time byUser:BOZ. There is no reason why a person with such strong opinions can't create an account.EdJohnston (talk)17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem creating an account, but i've never hidden the fact that even the 91.220 ip was mine (i did those edit today, commenting on my previous edits acnowledgint as mine) so calling me a "IP-hopping edit warrior" is highly inaccurate. The fun part is that you protected the page in the exact moment i was trying to add other official references. Go figure.— Precedingunsigned comment added by151.48.224.135 (talk)17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, i'd like to add that bothPeterTheFourth andEladynnus infranged the 3RR rule[14][15][16][17][18][19] with several more two days ago, over a section that is stillunder discussion, with several editors on each side. I do not think those two users should suffer no consequences.

Page:Dr. Strangelove (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:MarnetteD (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[26]

Comments:

I made a number of edits to the article, which were necessary to make it comply withWP:NPOV,WP:V and theWP:MOS. The edits were reverted without explanation by the user I'm reporting. They have reverted four times in a little under two hours, leaving only the rather insulting comment "rvt to last clean version". In response to my question on their talk page as to why they would consider my edits "dirty", they responded with further insults.86.185.226.91 (talk)22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And they continue to be astonishingly uncivil, seetheir removal of my notification to them of this discussion.86.185.226.91 (talk)22:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Marnette's reverting is minimal and the reporter hasn't exactly gone out of their way to resolve this dispute in a congenial manner (seethis message they left at Marnette's talk page despite the fact that Marnette made no personal attacks that I can see). There is progress on the talk page now so I recommend closing this report.Betty Logan (talk)01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Minimal? Four reverts in less than two hours is not minimal. It is textbook disruptive editing. Their only comment on their reverts was "revert to last clean version", which was a clear personal attack. And even if there were talk page progress (I don't see any reasons given for their reverting) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." There's a list of exceptions but it doesn't include a third editor subsequently commenting on the talk page. I recommend that they be blocked for at least 24 hours for unambiguously violating a supposed bright-line rule. It says right here on this page that "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."86.185.226.91 (talk)06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  You installed an edit four times, he reverted you by the same number so let's not get too hung up on the technicalities. I have left comments at the talk page addressing your points (some of which I support) so let's focus on the real issue of article improvement.Betty Logan (talk)07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

They broke a bright line rule; I didn't. That's not a technicality. Why should they not be blocked for disruptive editing?86.184.140.247 (talk)07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as the edit-warring is concerned Marnette simply reached the red line first and now you are attempting to exploit a loophole to get him blocked. However, just because you didn't revert four times does not mean you cannot be handed a block too, and the presiding admin might well take the view that you are gaming the rule. Another thing to bear in mind is that if the time expended on this report had been put into resolving the issue at the article then we could have all moved on to other things by now.Betty Logan (talk)08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no loophole. There's a rule which says don't edit disruptively and in particular, don't ever revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Where is the ambiguity? And what is the issue we're supposed to be resolving? For something resolvable to exist, we need to know why they reverted. An explanation for that is still lacking.86.184.140.247 (talk)09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the IP has been here all of two days and knows how to log things atWP:3RR and is familiar with other wiki policies (WP:NPA, disruptive editing, "bright-line rule", etc. Recommend the IP starts to discuss things on the article's talkpage and this is closed.Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead}07:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing for a while and I'm very familiar with the policies. Meanwhile, IP addresses change. I don't think that's news to many people. Why should the editor who was disruptively reverting not be blocked for doing so, when "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours"?86.184.140.247 (talk)07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not been "editing a while",certainly not on thisaccount address. But if you have, maybe you'd like to disclose your previous accounts in the interests of transparency?Cassianto^Talk08:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not an account and I've never had an account. If I could remember all the IP addresses I've made edits at, I'd certainly be happy to tell you. Bit difficult on mobile but I could look some up if you're really interested. Not sure I see how it's relevant to MarnetteD's edit warring though.

You can get a recap atWikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.Betty Logan (talk)08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be something entirely unrelated.86.184.140.247 (talk)09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's relevent because to me, it sounds like you aresocking and there is a legitimate caveat when it comes to 3rr and reverting socks and vandals.Cassianto^Talk11:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have any evidence for your claim, do present it somewhere. Otherwise it looks like just a personal attack.86.184.140.247 (talk)22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are reporting an editor with a excellent record of improving Wikipedia - yet you cannot "remember" all the IPs you have edited from and you certainly cannot be bothered to create a account. This appears to be a classic case ofsocking and I respectfully suggest you drop this absurd circus.David J Johnson (talk)22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor with an excellent record of improving Wikipedia would not blatantly violate the 3RR, as this user has done, so I don't believe your claim there. I "respectfully" suggest that if you have no evidence for your insulting claims, you should withdraw them.86.185.226.91 (talk)22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The trademark obsession with conforming to MOS is enough evidence in my opinion. This is definitely best known for IP.Sro23 (talk)22:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

???? Obsession? No. But you think that applying the manual of style is disruptive, do you?86.185.226.91 (talk)22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The adorable part of this is that the IP (whose edits are mostly decent) has, since reporting, engaged in edit wars on at least 2 other articles (with varying degrees of righteousness and disruptiveness). --JBL (talk)03:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Truly adorable how someone stalked my edits specifically because of the situation I reported and reverted other ones for no reason. Delightful. Charming. Lovely. Spiffing.86.184.140.247 (talk)07:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And as you can see, the editor has changed IPs again and displays their sockpuppetry, and continues to edit war after this discussion, believing it to be alright under the circumstances. And also accuses an editor of "stalking" publicly accessibly information.

IP addresses change. Try readingWP:SOCKPUPPET, you don't seem to understand what it actually is. And you somehow think one can't be stalking unless one's stolen private information? Interesting. Meanwhile you're restoring the edit warrior's unexplained changes and also stalking my other edits.86.184.140.247 (talk)07:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we bring this to a close, remind both all parties to use the talk page, rather than continually force the issue? Issuing blocks for this particular storm in a tea cup would not be helpful. –SchroCat (talk)08:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't need reminding to use the talk page, thanks; see the talk page discussion I started two days ago where MarnetteD is conspicuously absent. A block would have been very helpful when the user made their 4 reverts in 2 hours and thus demonstrated their disruptive intent. A block against the(Redacted) "AlexTheWhovian" who has taken up the baton of disruption would still be helpful - see below.86.184.140.247 (talk)08:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the IP editor continues to edit-war on this article, believing they are in the right. Time to whip out theWP:BOOMERANGs here.Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead}07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: The filing IP86.185.226.91 (talk ·contribs) has been blocked 31 hours byUser:Huon for disruptive editing and likely block evasion.86.184.140.247 (talk ·contribs), who posted comments above (and is presumably the same person) has been blocked by a different admin.EdJohnston (talk)17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Han Chinese (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC) to 07:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
   1. 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735207903 byLemongirl942 (talk)No reference =>WP:OR"
   2. 07:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735157948 byLemongirl942 (talk)91.6 and the number are diff."
   3. 07:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735157550 byBalthazarduju (talk)still informative to have some info on language in Lead"
   4. 07:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735155919 byLemongirl942 (talk)"
2. 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735165395 byLemongirl942 (talk)Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. None of the numbers tagged are verifiable."
3. 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734957929 byBalthazarduju (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC) to 09:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
   1. 09:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734880525 byBalthazarduju (talk) Why change the numbers from the sources?"
   2. 09:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734880400 byBalthazarduju (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing onHan Chinese. (TW)"
2. 07:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring onHan Chinese. (TW)"
3. 07:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule onHan Chinese. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ new section"
2. 07:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ comment"

Comments:

The editor is refusing to discuss and I think a short block is in order. They have edit warred against multiple editors on this page. I also noticed that they have been POV pushing for a long time on China/Taiwan articles.Lemongirl942 (talk)07:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

PingingBalthazarduju as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk)07:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Pattern of long-term edit warring atHan Chinese andHan Taiwanese over the last three days. The word 'Undid' appears in his contributions eleven times since August 16.EdJohnston (talk)17:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Michael T. Flynn (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Reverts as IP 72.86.137.233Consecutive edits made from 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC) to 05:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
   1. 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735008377 byWinkelvi (talk)"
   2. 05:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735008203 byWinkelvi (talk) Reverting to last NPOV edit"

1. Reverts as IP72.86.146.199:
   1. 11:48, August 18, 2016[27];
   2. 11:48, August 18, 2016[28];
   3. 11:53, August 18, 2016[29]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring onMichael T. Flynn. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Undue weight */ resp"
2. 05:46, August 18, 2016[30]
3. 12:02, August 18, 2016[31]

Comments:

Anon IP - using three different IP addresses - is insisting on re-adding POV content to article. Original IP used wasUser:72.86.139.57 with this edit:[32]. Article should probably be on thediscretionary sanctions list since the article subject is afilliated with the Donald Trump campaign. --WV ●✉✓19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. A concern has been raised on the talk page about undue weight, but the IP is not waiting for consensus there. Due to the issue of POV-pushing, I would alert the IP of discretionary sanctions underWP:ARBAP2 but it is unclear how to warn a fluctuating IP underWP:AC/DS.EdJohnston (talk)17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My ISP assigns various IP addresses every time I log on...duh. Hey Ed, did you notice that it was the complainant who started the edit warring, and he only came here when he couldn't get his way? And that he was advised in the Talk page BY TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE that he needed to supply an actual reason for deleting documented information about Flynn, and that he should seek consensus, rather than just insisting that his gut said the facts in question are POV? Most or all of the facts that you folks have now swept off the page are pretty much beyond any reasonable dispute: Flynn said and did those things. Heaven forbid his page should accurately reflect what Flynn is doing and saying during a presidential campaign!— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.86.146.61 (talk)01:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:22q13 deletion syndrome
User being reported:Pmsaccountwiki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[34]

Original dates back before January 2013.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=534896982

First attempt to rewrite (as unregistered user) 01:40, 22 June 2016https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=726416408

Recent rewrite after it was returned to original 02:47, 4 August 2016https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=732913559

See discussion below:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
These major rewrites were done without any attempt to contact me (original author). I have made no attempt.

Comments:
The purpose of the major revision is listed as "The content of the page as it was not accurate with the current scientific data and medical consensus of the disorder" However, this is part of repeated revisions of an established page (warring). These major revisions exclude much of the widely accepted information regarding the syndrome (catalog of genes). Citations were already current in the literature, some only a few weeks old at the time of the warring party made major revisions to remove the information. The repeated revisions try to re-define the syndrome in a way that is the minority view and conflicts with those who's names are associated with syndrome (see numerous citations in original page).

This minority view does have its followers and that view could have been expressed as an alternative viewpoint. Instead, the page has been repeatedly re-written as major revisions. This approach is completely against Wikipedia philosophy.

The central problem is that the warring party wants to describe the chromosomal deletion syndrome as caused by one gene (SHANK3). However, there is already a wikipedia page for SHANK3. SHANK3 information, history, speculation etc belong on that page. That is the proper place for discussing that one gene. Warring is of no benefit and removing the other 100 genes that are well documented as part of the syndrome (see original page) to promote a minority view is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

~~Arm42~~Arm42 (talk)03:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, y'all need to try to discuss the matter on the article's talk page before jumping over here.Ian.thomson (talk)03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have finally decided to reportUser:Snooganssnoogans for abusive behavior on the mainJill Stein page (specifically [power plays], regular edit warring, gaming, and clear violations ofWPP:NPA, possibleWP:3RR violations[35] here). I have tried as much as possible to follow the dispute resolution process, but the succor seemingly accorded to this user byUser:VictoriaGrayson and others has made discussion very difficult. There is a clear consensus emerging that the current state of the page is a catastrophe for Wikipedia neutrality. While I have no proof ofWP:COI (though some circumstantial evidence may well exist), there is good reason to look intoWP:CANVASSING violations, it seems to me.

The page in question has been discussed on theNPOV notice board (further links and comment on that page have been provided by another user).

It seems to me that the "hack" that has been effected on this page would be best adresssed withoutUser:Snooganssnoogans being present on the page. Possibly also withoutUser:VictoriaGrayson, and possibly even withoutUser:SashiRolls. It seems to me that sanctioningUser:Snooganssnoogans will be necessary to move forward peacefully. As it stands the page is damaging to Jill Stein, to Wikipedia, and even to Hillary Clinton (since many clearly think, as I do, that it has been hacked in a particularly effective manner).

Thisdiff shows edit warring before I came to the page.

Thank you for your time. Why can't we all just get along?  ;(SashiRolls (talk)02:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs.Ian.thomson (talk)03:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Spotlight (film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735321825 bySro23 (talk) Please adhere to the rules here and refrain from [[36]]. Thank you."
2. 23:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735314186 byMPS1992 (talk) Yes, there *is* consensus per [[37]]. Please stop the bias."
3. 19:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735289250 byMPS1992 (talk) See talk page, please, before editing!"
4. 18:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734496917 byMPS1992 (talk) Both sites conform to WP:EL as "those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." Criticism links are common for film wikis."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule onSpotlight (film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

In fairness, the formal warning to Steakpeak from me, noted above, cameafter his fourth revert, but I had mentioned the prohibition on edit warring, on his talk page,much earlier and more than a month ago in a welcome message.MPS1992 (talk)00:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. I would have liked to see some discussion on the talk page, but Steakpeak's accusation that other editors were Wikibullying by reverting drive me to let him know that he (behaviorally) was in the wrong here (no comment on article content).Ian.thomson (talk)03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight (film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:User:MPS1992 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• (cur | prev) 23:33, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735321825 by Sro23 (talk) Please adhere to the rules here and refrain fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Thank you.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:28, 19 August 2016‎ Sro23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Steakpeak (talk): No clear consensus. Further discussion need first, please. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 23:26, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735314186 by MPS1992 (talk) Yes, there *is* consensus perhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. Please stop the bias.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:16, 19 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (No consensus for this on talk page. See WP:ONUS as mentioned previously. Undid revision 735291857 by Steakpeak (talk)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 19:31, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735289250 by MPS1992 (talk) See talk page, please, before editing!) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:12, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-233)‎ . . (Extraneous and unimportant "See also" links removed.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:12, 19 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,825 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (Nothing under WP:ELYES here. Per WP:ONUS, seek consensus on talk page please. Undid revision 735287212 by Steakpeak (talk)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:57, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,041 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 734496917 by MPS1992 (talk) Both sites conform to WP:EL as "those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." Criticism links are common for film wikis.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:11, 14 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,825 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (→‎External links: not needed according to WP:EL) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)
• (cur | prev) 19:34, 13 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,041 bytes) (+87)‎ . . (Undid revision 734057226 by 108.80.180.217 (talk) Restored from vandalism) (undo)

User:MPS1992 has been driving a mean-spirited and bigoted edit war over an external link at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)] and has abused Wikipedia protocol, especially [WP:Civility] and [WP:WikiBullying].

The external link had been in place formonths, and it clearly and unambiguously aligns with [WP:EL] ("those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information" and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.")

Stevie Wonder can see the bias and bigotry going on here.Good-faith efforts to resolve this through the article's talk page have been fruitless.MPS1992 has no interest in this.

Thank you.Steakpeak (talk)00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello administrators. I am not going to tidy up Steakpeak's report about me, but I will now spend a few minutes attempting to provide a properly formatted summary of the edit-warring on the article and what I see as Steakpeak's role in it. I will be back in a short while, unless you come to a conclusion sooner.MPS1992 (talk)00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, below is as Twinkle sees it -- you may wish to merge this report and the one below.MPS1992 (talk)00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of24 hours per below report.Ian.thomson (talk)03:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:Sherlock (TV series) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Page:Dr. Strangelove (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:86.184.140.247 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Sherlock

Previous version reverted to:[38]

Dr. Strangelove

Previous version reverted to:[39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Sherlock

1. [40] (initial edit)
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Dr. Strangelove

1. [44] (initial edit)
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[51]

Comments:
User has edited from86.184.140.247 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and86.185.226.91 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), and claims that their IP address changes, but has edits from around the same time, per their contribution history. Editor has filed a report against another user who has reverted them who did not violated 3RR, and apparently has no intent to allow the status quo to remain while discussions are in place. User also maintains talk pages of both IP addresses.Alex|The|Whovian^?08:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a dishonest report. Check the diffs and their time stamps and you'll see that at no time have I reverted more than three times in 24 hours. This user is simply joining in the attacks against me for my report of MarnetteD above; even though no justification of any kind has been given for undoing my edits toDr. Strangelove, this editor is now continuing to undo them, without giving any reason. My edits toSherlock (TV series) were reverted by someone who specifically did so because of my report of MarnetteD; read the talk page to see that my version is supported.86.184.140.247 (talk)08:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter if you reverted less than three times in 24 hours; were have been edit-warring, which is continuously reverting other editors, no matter of the time frame. Do the crime, face the time.Alex|The|Whovian^?08:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the one reverting for no reason. I explained all my edits, they were supported on the talk page, the original revert warrior didn't explain themselves, so I reinstated them at Dr. Strangelove and saw that someone else said they would reinstate them at Sherlock, and yet you somehow felt that it would be productive to revert them again:[52][53][54][55] You're now indulging in personal attacks as well.[56] It hardly looks like you're here to make an encyclopaedia.86.184.140.247 (talk)08:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO:If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain (except in biographies of living people, where contentious material should be removed). You would prefer to edit war over letting the status quo sit while you await replies. There's my reason. Two years and 38,000+ edits, and apparently I'm "hardly looks like you're here to make an encyclopaedia". Right.Alex|The|Whovian^?08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment 86.184.140.247 is repeatedly removing a warning on86.185.226.91 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) talk page despite multiple warnings.Jim1138 (talk)08:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, potential gaming/socking... As a disinterested onlooker, it looks to me like the IP isWP:NOTHERE.Marianna251TALK12:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked Blocked byOhnoitsjamieNeilN^{talk to me}17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor is now socking with two more IPs:94.117.87.110 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and94.117.24.185 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and94.117.39.40 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log).Alex|The|Whovian^?06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

List of Mock the Week episodes (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

GUtt01 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "This is not vandalism. There is no proper need to include Wins, because it has no notability whatsoever. This article should only be listing episodes; information on the guest performers for an episode is fine."
2. 17:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735272140 byCwmxii (talk) This is not vandalism"
3. 16:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735263226 byLaunchballer (talk)"
4. 15:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735155686 byCwmxii (talk) There is no proper scoring system. Do not revert this back"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment - I was acting irresponsibly, because I let my temper get the better of me. I have been talking toLaunchballer about the article in question, and I think they were a good person to step in on this matter. We're discussing the article, and I may put in for a discussion on the article's main page,Mock the Week, about this article's layout.GUtt01 (talk)19:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to personally add that I feel ashamed I let my emotions get the better of me.GUtt01 (talk)21:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's not forget there was also 4 reverts byCwmxii. Cwmxii could have easily brought to the ANEW or the article's talk page.

1. 22:46, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
2. 17:00, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
3. 17:22, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
4. 17:26, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75 (talk)20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - While there is no excuse for making 4 reverts, it should be noted that GUtt01 has not been warned and he did post on the article's talk page concerning this 4 days ago.[57] Cwmxii has made no attempt to discuss. --AussieLegend (✉)03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Page protected Came to this from RFPP, and if this weren't as stale as it is, blocks would be handed out to both offenders. You guys have been here long enough to know better.Katie^talk15:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:John Taylor (reality show star) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Tayl2104 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:36, 20 August 2016revision diff 735342922 to 735381481 (+63)‎ . . (Undid revision 735342922 by Tayl2104 (talk) Discuss it on the talk page first, you have a conflict of interest. (WP:3RR)) ?

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:27, 19 August 2016‎revision diff 735063491 to 735174323 (-34)‎
2. 12:21, 19 August 2016revision diff 735177427 to 735237307 (-35)‎
3. 23:03, 19 August 2016‎revision diff 735243845 to 735319209 (-64)‎ . . (Removed autobiography message. Explained in TALK that there is no external relationship. Just did homework on subject)
4. 02:39, 20 August 2016‎revision diff 735338817 to 735342922 (-63)‎ . . (Removed autobiography tag. Not an autobiography.)
5. 13:53, 20 August 2016‎revision diff 735381481 to 735405395 (-35)‎ . . (removed autobiography tag. It was inaccurate. Not an autobiography.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. revision diff 735342922 to 735381481
2. 09:44, 20 August 2016revision diff 735242010 to 735382177 (+404)‎ . . (→‎Autobiography tag: Add a message about second autobiography template removal)
3. 14:42, 20 August 2016‎revision diff 735405202 to 735410532 (+1,759)‎ . . (Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• revision diff 733094325 to 735405202 (inUser talk:Tayl2104)
• revision diff 732147281 to 735394871 (inUser talk:Only)

Comments:

RemovingTemplate:Autobiography without talk page consensus. In my opinion, the article should be reverted to the original whereTemplate:Other people and Template:Autobiography exists before Tayl2104's reverts. There's been no reverts after the 3RR warning byUser:Only.80.221.159.67 (talk)16:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:RuPaul's All Stars Drag Race (season 1) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Starbucks6789 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]

Comments: The same edits are happening with a few IP users leading me to believe that this user is logging out of their account and editing the page. I have left numerous messages on their talk page.

Oath2order(talk)22:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: over a dozen reversions in the past two weeks, seehere

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff: user warned
2. diff: recent gorilla reversion
3. diff: not the most egregious example. Seediff here, for more information.
4. diff Note that user changes 100s of things, many of which I,User:SashiRolls, had not touched, contrary to his/her assertion. These disruptive reverts are common.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:diff (among others Cf.here andhere)

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

Comments:

I have finally decided to reportUser:Snooganssnoogans for abusive behavior on the mainJill Stein page (specifically [power plays], regular edit warring, gaming, and clear violations ofWPP:NPA, possibleWP:3RR violations[62] here). I have tried as much as possible to follow the dispute resolution process, but the succor seemingly accorded to this user byUser:VictoriaGrayson and others has made discussion very difficult. There is a clear consensus emerging that the current state of the page is a catastrophe for Wikipedia neutrality. While I have no proof ofWP:COI (though some circumstantial evidence may well exist), there is good reason to look intoWP:CANVASSING violations, it seems to me.

The page in question has been discussed on theNPOV notice board (further links and comment on that page have been provided by another user).

It seems to me that the "hack" that has been effected on this page would be best adresssed withoutUser:Snooganssnoogans being present on the page. Possibly also withoutUser:VictoriaGrayson, and possibly even withoutUser:SashiRolls. It seems to me that sanctioningUser:Snooganssnoogans will be necessary to move forward peacefully. As it stands the page is damaging to Jill Stein, to Wikipedia, and even to Hillary Clinton (since many clearly think, as I do, that it has been hacked in a particularly effective manner).SashiRolls (talk)10:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This user is systematically removing content that he/she feels is damaging to Stein (such as reliable sources correcting some of her pseudoscience views) and often does so while going against consensus. The user, who dabbles in conspiracy theories (such as that all other editors who disagree with him on the article are shills) and uses poor sources (the user forcefully defended the use of Venezuelan state propaganda) repeatedly starts new discussions rather than joins in on existing discussions. The user does these disruptive edits 24/7 (just check his user history), which requires constant reverts. I don't believe that I've breached the 3RR but if I have done so accidentally in an effort to keep this user from messing up the article, I apologize.Snooganssnoogans (talk)10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, the strategy is to haveUser:VictoriaGrayson revert once the user above has reached the daily limit. Examples of thishere (reversion quickly reverted by another user) andhere.SashiRolls (talk)10:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• SashiRollssays he refuses to follow the results of RfCs like thisthis one where he is the only dissenting opinion. TheWP:IRONY is astounding.VictoriaGrayson^Talk12:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• The diffs provided above about Snooganssnoogans' alleged reverts don't even make sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Agreed that this is a malformed report.SashiRolls, this looks more suited forWP:ANI. However I strongly urge you to readWP:BOOMERANG first as your own behavior will also be examined.NeilN^{talk to me}16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the time spent looking into it. I will see how things develop. The pressure has led to some significant improvements.SashiRolls (talk)23:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:Feature levels in Direct3D (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:135.0.55.14 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]
7. [70]
8. [71]
9. [72]
10. [73]
11. [74]
12. [75]
13. [76]
14. [77]
15. [78]
16. [79]
17. [80]
18. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[83]

Comments: none
--Dmitry_{(talk•contibs)}21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Many of the listed edits are consecutive, but the user has never posted on an article talk page and seemsunwilling to follow our policy on usage of reliable sources.EdJohnston (talk)02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Liv and Maddie (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC) "trying again without the disputed categories, also marked the reception as needing expansion"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC) to 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC) "/* External links */ this was more specific"
   2. 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) "/* External links */ fixed one"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has continually been adding disputed and other categories without even attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. In fact, this user seems to the only one for the categories while everyone else is against. See the relevant discussion atTalk:Liv and Maddie#Category disputes. MentioningGeraldo Perez andIJBall since they were involved in the discussion.Amaury (talk |contribs)03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No violation – It takes four reverts to breakWP:3RR, while only two are listed above. It is unclear whether the talk page has reached any definite agreement on the categories.EdJohnston (talk)00:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: This has been semi-long-term edit-warring, though I don't know why it only pulled up those edits. Please take a look at the history of the article in question:Liv and Maddie. User has been challenged by at least two users and continues to insert problematic content.Amaury (talk |contribs)01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You can prove your case by supplying diffs. If you want admins to go further back, you will need more diffs. Also, the talk page discussion is very unclear on what has been agreed to. Consider opening anWP:RFC, or ask more specific questions. If someone reverts against a clear talk page consensus they might be blocked, but a consensus should be clear.EdJohnston (talk)02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I did provide differences—the actual article's history. But I digress. It's not worth pursuing it if it's going to be this difficult.Geraldo Perez orIJBall can respond here further if they think they can make a case, but I'm dropping out of this race.Amaury (talk |contribs)02:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

HiEdJohnston – FWIW, it was essentially consensus at the Talk page that the categories Kkjj was trying to add were not appropriate due toWP:Defining. While Kkjj may not have technically violated 3RR, they have been slow-mo edit warring to include these cats anyway for about a month. I thought Kkjj hadWP:Dropped the stick, but it looks like they haven't. I'm not sure I would block in the case, but a gentle warning from an Admin such as yourself might be worth a shot (and also might establish a baseline forWP:ROPE)... --IJBall(contribs •talk)02:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page:Nazi gun control theory (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Grayfell (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)User being reported:99.242.108.55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[88]

Comments:

• No violation Took a look at article. No vio.NeilN^{talk to me}19:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How so? I certainly see a violation.

Diffs of the user's newest revert:

1. [89]

Diff of latest attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[90]— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.119.20.133 (talk)20:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Per my talk page:Grayfell has two reverts. You have three. Neither of you have broken WP:3RR but you are closer. And posting to your talk page likely won't attract anyone's attention. Suggest you post to the article's talk page. --NeilN^{talk to me}20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". It is my contributions that have been overridden, not Grayfell's. I did not override anyone's contributions. I contributed several hours worth of carefully cited neutral-point-of-view material. My contributions have been deleted/censored without any just cause. Now a Wikipedia administrator is accusing me of almost starting an edit war? I insist that my edits be restored immediately unless they violate the rules of editing wikipedia, and if they do violate those rules, then please explain which rules were violated and please also remove all of the non-neutral opinions of the opponents of Nazi Gun Control Theory, such as the claims that Nazi Gun Control Theory is "preposterous" and "counterfactual history" that appear in the opening paragraphs of the article, if the opinions of the proponents of Nazi Gun Control theory cannot also be communicated alongside the views of the opponents of the theory. Grayfell is violating the wikipedia policy of neutral point of view by only allowing the perspective of the opponents of the theory that the page is about to be posted on the page, and by preventing the views of the proponents of the theory from explaining what the theory theorizes somewhere in the article about the theory.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.119.20.133 (talk)20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to have this conversation in two locations. This particular report isdeclined. --NeilN^{talk to me}20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the most recent attempt to resolve the edit war that has been waged against me without just cause, NeilN.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory&diff=735598532&oldid=735598160 I encourage you to join the conversation and act as a mediator. Please come demonstrate you adherence to the Wikipedia principles of neutrality and the free flow of verifiable information.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.119.20.133 (talk)21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop posting here. This report is closed. And no admin is going to make content decisions for an article they've made admin decisions on. --NeilN^{talk to me}21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Nazi gun control theory (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "No sourced content has been removed, only rearranged, with the intro to the article opening an explanation of the theory the article is about and criticism of the theory being moved to the second paragraph. Historical context also provided"
2. 22:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "Opens intro with explanation of the theory, rather than rebuttals to the theory; provides intro to historical context; quote from architect of Nazi policies on his motivations and goals"
3. 19:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735565790 by99.242.108.55 (talk User is Edit Warring and attempting to prevent the expression of all viewpoints that agree with the theory According to Nazi Gun Control)"
5. 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "Shifted focus of article away from ridiculing the theory the article is about, and towards discussing the views of the proponents of the theory and how Nazi gun control policy was similar to arms control in other nations and historical eras."
6. 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 735317420 byGrayfell (talk)"
7. 22:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730946543 byGrayfell (talk) This quote is absolutely essential to understanding Hitler's policy on gun control, stop rewriting history to suit your political agenda Grayfell."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is focused on including a specific quote from Hitler which lacks context and supporting sources. This has expanded to include a number of other controversial changes with similar sourcing problems. The userreported me and another IP for edit warring, and was thenwarned byNeilN. They started a talk page discussion about the changes, but then ignored responses and reverted anyway.

This is similar behavior regarding the same Hitler quote which led toTempus Loquendi beingblocked last month, although the IP shows better restraint with personal attacks.Grayfell (talk)23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote is absolutely essential to the article. It is a quote from a reputable academic sources. It is a quote from the architect of the policies that the article specifically pertains to and it clearly shows that his motivations and goals were the same goals that are postulated by Nazi Gun Control Theorists, which seems to be precisely why Grayfell wants the quote removed, but I insist that this extremely pertinent information not be censored from this page, and that instead the readers should have the opportunity to decide whether they agree with or object to Hitler' policies or the theories of his critics, even though Nazi historical revisionists would prefer to have it otherwise. All changes on this article appear to be controversial, that is why I opted to approach the article from a historical context, while also ensuring that the views of the proponents of the article were as represented as the views of the opponents and were clearly attributable. [User:Grayfell] seems intent on preventing an open discussion of the theory that the page is about, and on ensuring that the views of the opponents remain dominant. He does not seem so interested in removing the claim that the whole theory is "counterfactual" and "preposterous" which appears before what the theory actually postulates is even discussed. Grayfell is edit warring and is violating the principle of a neutral point of view in the aforementioned way. He has been censoring my edits and the edits of other users on this page for quite some time. The edits I have previously attempted are not an attempt to override anyone else'e contributions. All other contributions are still present, although the rebuttals to the theory do not appear until the second paragraph of the introduction, and it now begins with an explanation of the theory.

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clear 3RR violation, does not seem to want to stop. This seesms to obviously be one of the previous editors of that page editing warring for that same material; hence a longer block.Kuru(talk)23:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Page

Black Panther Party (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC) "New York don't own the story."
2. 01:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) "They were not nationalist. Stop distorting history."
3. 01:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring onBlack Panther Party. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC) "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */ reply"
2. 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC) "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */ reply"
3. 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */ comment"