Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266

User:Techimo reported by User:HelloThereMinions (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638328106 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638328053 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 638328007 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 638389059 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 638388998 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 638388931 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 638398203 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 638398154 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 638398099 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 638401685 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 638401637 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
 * 12)  "Undid revision 638401606 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 638418807 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 638418765 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 638418741 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 638545045 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 638546351 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)  Restored original text that was altered by IP vandal / online merchant."
 * 18)  "Undid revision 638547958 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Revert to original text due to IP vandal."
 * 19)  "Undid revision 638548303 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 638548721 by NotTechimo (talk) See talk page."
 * 21)  "Undid revision 638557594 by NotTechimo (talk) See talk page."
 * 22)  "Undid revision 638564495 by NotTechimo (talk)"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 638574049 by NotTechimo (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 638576921 by NotTechimo (talk) Reverting IP vandalism. See talk page."
 * 25)  "Undid revision 638577824 by NotTechimo (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638557594 by NotTechimo (talk) See talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638564495 by NotTechimo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 638574049 by NotTechimo (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 638576921 by NotTechimo (talk) Reverting IP vandalism. See talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 638577824 by NotTechimo (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

"Warning: Edit warring on ResellerRatings. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See talk page, there are many diffs.


 * Comments:

Reverted page many times in 1 day. Although this user discussed on talk page, reverts edits despite not reaching a conclusion. This user also passed the reverted content off as vandalism and biased point of view (possibly to evade detection), but I can't see any vandalism or any biased point of view. HelloThereMinions talk, contribs 03:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The user who initiated the initial edit ( 23:11, 3 December 2014‎ 71.235.154.73) after a long period of quiet on this article, and subsequently as user NotTechimo, is an online retailer. He has COI and is adding negative spin to a previously neutral (edited by 45 editors over 7 years) article about a merchant ratings site to serve his personal agenda, which is that he does not like the site (see his initial edit comment where he stated, "Because this article is nothing more than an advertisement for this business, and leaves out many of the facts of the dark side of this company." I (and apparently other people from several IPs) have been undoing his edits. Today, I am attempting to work with his latest edit despite his COI, by allowing edits minus the hyperbole/negative spin. So far, he is insisting on adding a poorly sourced negative section called Controversy which appears to be at the heart of his agenda, to support his cause. In any case, I don't think he should be editing the page and I think that all of his edits should be reverted for COI. 99% of my edits have been reversions to his added text until today. I understand WIkipedia's policies regarding edit warring and I am attempting to resolve the conflict with civil edits and collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techimo (talk • contribs)
 * till the end of this year.  Wifione  Message 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Laurencejwolf reported by User:Materialscientist (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

Comments:

Laurencejwolf is edit warring against at least 3 regulars (myself, Smokefoot and Tarlneustaedter) trying to add a fringe theory on superconductivity at 277 K (4 C) discovered in the 1970. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunate... You've reverted the editor. If the editor reverts you this time, I'll block. I've left another warning on the editor's talk page. Let's hope this newbie learns (although I think this is going towards a block). I'll keep this report open for now.  Wifione  Message 08:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , if the disruption happens again, please post another report with reference to this report. The editor will be blocked then. Currently, the editor seems to have backed off.  Wifione  Message 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:23 editor reported by User:Let& (Result: Page deleted)

 * User being reported:
 * Article:

Looks like some POV- editwarring over the established name of a town in Kosovo, and all without any major consensus.


 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd

Looks never-ending to me, I ask admins to note that a discussion is under way at Talk:Peć whereby the consensus is that have the page moved to Peja. Let&#39;s keep it neutral (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . The page(s) in question have been deleted, at least one directly by me. Please come back if there is disruption on any other article/page. Wifione  Message 17:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:188.126.90.35 reported by User:Dinkytown (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638796776 by Manul (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638796939 by Dinkytown (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638796776 by Manul (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638796939 by Dinkytown (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638796776 by Manul (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638796939 by Dinkytown (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Feathered dinosaur. using TW"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Refused to comply


 * Comments:

Had reverted no less than 5x on the Feathered dinosaur page. Dinky town  talk  17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The user is either not serious or not competent, warring while leaving messages on my talk page about "suppressing the truth". User has not been given a 3RR warning until after this report. I don't know if it's vandalism or weirdness. Manul 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following up with Manul. User also left message on my talk page: "...WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH, YOU JEW!?!" Concurring with Manul.  Dinky town   talk  17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . — east718 &#124; talk  &#124; 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786 reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked Qwerty786 and PjeterPeter)
Page:

User being reported:

Normally one would show each of the reverts, but in this incidence I really cannot be bothered as there are soooooooo many. Instead I will just show the revision history. I mean just look at the revision history, it is ridiculous. I am aware that two other editors were involved in this edit war, however I fairly warned all users on the article talk page and tried to resolve this dispute on the talk page instead. After I warned them, one editor told me "Don't be ignorant" before continuing to edit war. I find this behaviour completely unacceptable and disruptive to Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is a better off without an editor like this. Also this user has unilaterally moved the article title without consensus an with the proper WP:RM procedure. Whilst other editors may have violated Wikipedia policy, I think this particular editor deserves a more severe punishment. Kind regards IJA (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:FrJosephSuaiden (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments: User seems to believe that threatening by labelling this an edit war will allow one to slip past factual accuracy. As user is trying to use "edit warring" as an attempt to bypass NPOV I'm reporting.

FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Admins and Father Deacon Suaiden: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Suaiden. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I don't see any egregious edit warring from Elizium23. I'm declining this report as of now.  Wifione  Message 00:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Teja srinivas reported by User:Blackguard SF (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638528623 by Blackguard SF (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638477528 by Ugog Nizdast (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 638466898 by Sarvajna (talk)"
 * 4)  "Done by user:Teja srinivas"
 * 1)  "Done by user:Teja srinivas"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sagarika Ghose. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sagarika Ghose. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:




 * Comments:

For diffs 4 and 5 the user manually added contested content and edited while logged out, totalling five reverts. Blackguard 20:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know Tejas has been warned earlier; still, I've warned him once more. But he's on the talk page of the article and has not reverted after his edit was reverted. If the disruption continues, please do come back.  Wifione  Message 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Heuh0 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638702256 by TMDrew (talk) Assuming good faith. Craig is not a respected philosopher, and a religious fundamentalist, his religious-guided views do not belong on a scientific article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638711094 by TMDrew (talk) You are now removing scientific information from a  scientific page and adding religious beliefs. THIS IS VANDALISM."
 * 3)  "removing irrelevant information, adding information, moving some info to A and B theory page, and improving reading experience of article."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"
 * 2)   "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"
 * 3)   "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"


 * Comments:

This user has run roughshod over the B-theory of time page, using the talk page very minimally, with no attempt for any type of compromise. This user refuses to listen to arguments on the talk page. Recommend a ban from this page. TMD  Talk Page.  21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The user is new. I've warned the user. Come back if the disruption restarts.  Wifione  Message 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to weigh in. When I came across the B-theory of time, it was in extremely poor condition, it mostly contained information regarding A-series of time (despite there being a page on A-series and B-series), additionally there was a single paragraph on the physics support B-theory has (which is where is had become popular recently) as opposed to A-thoery which is less scientific and popular with other groups, and the physics potentially behind B-theory. The remaining (50%) writing on the page was several paragraphs on William Craig a somewhat Christian fundamentalist, theologian philosopher. The article described his opinions on the theory, and there are a number of problems with that. The first problem is that most of the paragraphs did not even state that those beliefs were Craig or even that they were beliefs, for example, "B theory suffers a incoherence as all other theories, that time is illusionary. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming", except this was not stated as a belief of Craig but or as opinion/belief at all, but as a fact outright, (note Craig (a Christian) making a dig at Buddhist philosophy).

The second is much more fundamental, the problem is that this type of writing does not belong on this type of page. The page is an academic page on Physics and scientific philosophy. The theme of the views (which were Craig's) were aggressive, they were also written in a format that mislead the reader into thinking this was by far the general consensus, or a major position on the matter (to give you an idea what I',m talking about, Craig views (though some not even stated as views) were placed in the description of B-theory section as opposed to a new section on opposition). The 'philosophy' certainly wasn't worth any recognition in the academic community, and hence hasn't been. Reword the paragraphs you say? Well, most of it was even beyond that, it was just babble that had no academic founding, it was mostly juts random ranting. Craig has also been criticised by the academic community for pushing A-theory. The fact is the page was not much philosophy but a collection of Craig's religous-oriented rants and opinions (for lack of a better word). It was the type of information that belonged Craig biographical page under 'views and opinion' rather than a academic page. I should note that there was perhaps one small paragraph potentially worth keeping which I kept, however after further reading the statements contracted themselves, Craig argued against yet his quotes supported the theory, additionally the book where these views were from was a book, was won theories of time but also on the physics behind them. The book was completely rejected by the community and labelled pseudoscientific (books reviews also tell of this, particularly Craig completely misunderstanding relativity). User:TMDrew had continuously reverted these edits, time and time again, he was also responsible, I believe, for putting the Craig information in, in the first place. Despite me giving reasons for removing the content, User:TMDrew continuously undid my edits. It was then I noticed that User:TMDrew is a Christian, and I do believe he may have some sort of personal conflict or personal agenda with the article. After continuously undoing edits, and after me giving reasons, and warning him, on the edit description, talk page AND his user page, he has continued. He is continuously adding information (Craig's ranting) onto the page that does not belong, he has worded it in ways that mislead the reader into thinking they were facts supported by the community, and in his most recent edit HE REMOVED THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC PARAGRAPH on the page. The page was left them with a bunch of information A-theory and ranting by Craig written in a misleading way. Hence my reason for issuing said warning.

Finally it should be noted from looking talk page he has had numerous disputes over this with User:Mojowiha, where User:TMDrew has removed previously vandalised the page demoing physics information, removing information telling the reader that the theory was supported by physics when it was. User:Mojowiha also had problems with User:TMDrew's editing in regards to his favorability of Craig. From what I have seen User:TMDrew is serving personal agenda.

(oh and also that final'Diffs of the user's reverts' at 3:41am wasn't a revert, but an edit) Thanks Heuh (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Use dispute resolution in case talk page discussions fail. Do not edit war or cross 3RR. If disruption continues, come back here to report. But do not edit war. Read the policy page to understand what is edit warring. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:JudeccaXIII reported by User:ReformedArsenal (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638573844 by ReformedArsenal (talk)RfC support/reverting POV pusher"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on God the Son. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible */"
 * 2)   "/* RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible */"


 * Comments:

Editor insists on adding improper sources to substantiate unsourced claim in article, despite an active RFC that has not reached consensus. He has now accused me of PoV pushing so I do not believe that this is something that can be resolved through non-admin channels ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not been edit warring with ReformedArsenal, ReformedArsenal has been edit warring with everyone in the article/discussion. I have not edit the article since November 21 as I reverted a IP then unitil now:  This was my first time reverting ReformedArsenal with the edit summary: RfC support/reverting POV pusher. ReformedArsenal is the only one actually reverting multiple editors in the article God the Son: Revision history: . I and In ictu oculi have been arguing with ReformedArsenal in the discussion as all disputes go about proper sources which was provided. ReformedArsenal did not approve of anything we offered, so ReformedArsenal requested RfC on November 24: . Majority RfC volunteers suggested sources were required, which the main argument of the discussion was sources provided. It wasn't until editor Elmmapleoakpine tried to place sources in the article that support my side of the argument today: . ReformedArsenal reverted. That is when my revert came in via RfC support/reverting POV pusher. Like always in the article, ReformedArsenal revered me back today:, then reported me here to AN3. In my opinion through the edit history of the article and discussion, through the multiple reverts done in the article by ReformedArsenal, the arguments against some of the RfC volunteers by ReformedArsenal, and now me on AN3, I believe ReformedArsenal is trying to avoid general consensus via WP:GAME. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment this could WP:BOOMERANG. Does WP:ANI really need notifying of a consensus of editors retaining "Paris is the capital of France" style blindingly obvious content because not many modern sources state the blindingly obvious. Reformed Arsenal (well named, apparently) is taking not taking issue with the truthfulness of longstanding content in the article (namely that the Latin formula Deus Filius "God the Son" is a term from the Athanasian Creed etc rather than the Bible) but merely with the 19th century sources that bother to state what was in the 19th century still a surprise to some people. Reformed Arsenals RFC was already timewasting enough. As before, let Reformed Arsenal indicate which of dozens 19th Century source he accepts for the ref he demands for the article content he accepts is truthful factual and obvious, but which he was challened, and close this waste of ANI time with a trout. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify this false report, I have not violated WP:3RR nor the 2RR rule: . — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , please use dispute resolution in case talk page discussions fail.  Wifione  Message 00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcepeci reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638817629 by SantiLak (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 638741933 by SantiLak (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
 * 5)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
 * 6)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
 * 7)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
 * 1)  "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1).


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Petition */ new section"


 * Comments:

Previously blocked for edit warring, so obviously familiar with the rule. SantiLak also violated 3RR but has since stopped. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:175.110.139.126 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit Warring on ISIL infobox
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  same edit - made After this report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] There is a comment to not change, see talk right at this spot. Check special contributions see a list of additional related edits across other articles that have been reverted by other editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  I suspect this IP to be related to User:Wheels of steel0 or User:Anasaitis but at any rate they are edit warring and over the 1RR community sanctions on this article.

Comments:


 * – 48 hours for 1RR violation and long-term warring. This IP has never left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FelixRosch reported by User:76.31.249.221 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is attempting to restore an incomplete plot synopsis simply because a complete, concise synopsis was put in its' place without being discussed on the talk page. Prior to the changes made, the article had not been edited for a significant period of time and the poorly written, incomplete synopsis was left in place without any due attention.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor's comment; FelixRosch has not violated 3RR. They have only reverted three times over the last couple of days, with the previous revert being on the 15th. Your diffs are also not correct, since some of them point to your own reverts. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IP editor has edited from what appears to be a single purpose account. The IP editor was not answering any Talk requests or BRD requests and I left a message inviting the IP editor to open an account and stop reverting without Talk. I tried to restore the text to the original version from November as being more accurate. Eventual one message was left by the IP editor, and then another editor contacted my Talk page apparently to support the IP editor. If reviewing Administrator feels that the single purpose IP account edit is justified then it can stand as is, otherwise someone else can have it restored to the previous November version. I can be reached on my Talk page for further information as required. FelixRosch   (TALK ) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – To reach a conclusion on what plot summary to use, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Rahulmdinesh reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Socks indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Best appeared version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  10:53, 17 December 2014
 * 2)  17:10, 17 December 2014
 * 3)  14:36, 18 December 2014‎
 * 4)  18:02, 19 December 2014‎
 * 5)  03:41, 20 December 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National Centre for Excellence Bladesmulti (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Additional sockpuppet and IP edit reverts:
 * 16:35, 16 December 2014
 * 14:36, 18 December 2014
 * Primefac (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One more sock and I will open a sock puppet investigation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely the two named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:49.195.38.6 reported by User:ChamithN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 638867883 by Jeffro77 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 638870977 by Nick-D (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 638871433 by ChamithN (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
 * . There are actually five reverts, and they are only edits made by the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Yezohtz2 reported by User:Luxure (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Kindfully request to discuss your objections to the source on the talk page. Please seek consensus if you don't want certain developments to be added. Undid revision 638343624 by Luxure (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please see source: "(he demaned) public declaration from the government that his was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State". Undid revision 638343049 by Luxure (talk)"
 * 3)  "Motive is what an attacker reasons for his actions. It does NOT matter what the Austrialian authorities call it. His motive is quoted by hostages in the source.Undid revision 638342746 by Luxure (talk)"
 * 4)  "HIS motive is quoted as: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack." Undid revision 638342069 by Luxure (talk)"
 * 5)  "Please see source for the motive he describes before editing. Discuss your objections on the talk page. Undid revision 638341709 by Luxure (talk)"
 * 6)  "Motive desribed in attackers own words:  "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
 * 7)  "Undid revision 638341388 by Melcous (talk) See source: "... this was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State" he stated as his MOTIVE."
 * 8)  "Added motive the attacker stated: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
 * 9)  "Yes, it is. Why are you defending terrorism? Undid revision 638179779 by Sroc (talk)"
 * 10)  "Updated motive and source."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2014 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* December 2014 */"
 * 5)   "/* December 2014 */"
 * 6)   "/* December 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Motive */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Motive */"


 * Comments:

The user also received a warning previously for uncivil behaviour and is biased and is seemingly anti-Islamic. He/She has not listened to discussing it on the talk page and continues to revert and argue  Lux ure Σ  12:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is clear that User:Luxure is well aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, but has nevertheless continually edit-warred. (Apart from anything else, this report demonstrates awareness of the policy.) On the other hand, User:Yezohtz2 has never been warned about edit warring (the edits linked above under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" mention "unconstructive edits", "edits that appear disruptive", "reports that ... are UNCONFIRMED by law agencies", "remains unconfirmed", etc etc, but not edit warring) and I therefore would have merely warned Yezohtz2 had it not been for this edit in which he or she indicates an awareness of the fact that edit warring is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson (talk) thank you for overseeing this complaint and I profusely apologise for any inconvience User:Luxure and I caused by this silly, trivial (I'm a maths guy too!) matter. We should have known better but it escalated quickly. Yezohtz2 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)4
 * Do you see how this editor is being uncivil and insults me? He accuses me of being a Jihadi (both [here] and on my talk page, saying that it is his business that I state my religion and nationality. I think (I'm not entirely sure) Wikipedia has a policy about good faith and no personal attacks. The editor has also been uncivil in the past. The user is also anti-Islamic. In 2 weeks it will be 2015. There is no place in today's world for people like this. I have had past experiences with editors like this before, even though it says on my userpage that I am Australian, I was accused of being a completely different ethnicity because I believed that the addition of one word made the paragraph POV. This escalated into a full edit war of personal attacks (in this instance I stopped after 3, I was a wary new editor.) If you really want to see what it escalated to, [|see here]. Please note, it takes a while to load (Australian Internet). I was first accused of being a sockpuppet of another editor because I agreed with them, then another editor came and I was the puppeteer, and then I got reported to ArbCom for a technical mistake, and the editor who reported me didn't even consult me! I do not like to be insulted like this, and I can see this editor in the previous editors, claiming things with no evidence at all. Sorry for the rant, but you may want to consider what the user has said.  Lux ure  Σ  00:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I love being ignored.  Lux ure Σ  01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Lux ure Σ  I am neither pro-Islam or anti. I care about reliable sources and updating articles. Do you also? Or you are dictated in your editing by a pro-Islamic agenda? Refute the claim then. If you are not a Jihadi, why don't you refute the claim? You have had ample opportunity now to do so. And I withdrew calling you a Jihadi (see edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=638511719&oldid=638510067) after consulting with Wikipedia's community and valuing the need for civil conversation. But personally, you have demonstrated a clear pro-Mohammedan agenda. Even after your nation of Australia was ruthlessly attacked by Islamic State, you have the nerve to demand pro-Islamism??? It can be argued that you have blood on your hands for whitewashing the Islamic terrorist 2014 Sydney hostage crisis.  Yez ohtz2  π   20:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are delusional, if you truly think that. I don't want to know what gremlins hide under your bed. Also, thanks for copying my signature! You even included my particular affinity for Hellenic lettering. At least you like the signature of an apparent (to you) Jihadi!  Lux ure Σ  11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NBAkid reported by User:Xuxo (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user insists on posting pictures of celebrities and claiming they are "whitr" not bringing any source To confirm his claims. I tried To discuss the issue on the article's talk page but now he is edit-warring. He is doing the same on Pardo article

almost every, if not every ethnic/race page has an unsourced gallery with pictures of individuals belonging to that group in it. i think this issue is him/her cherry picking particular articles and editing/blanking it with malicious intent. NBAkid (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I reviewed your editing at this and other articles, as well as your history, and you have a disturbing pattern of aggression and edit warring. Comments like "malicious intent" don't help. The only reason I didn't block you was because you didn't breach WP:3RR, although you came close and you don't have to breach 3RR to be blocked. You also appear to have stopped battling, at least for the moment. Nonetheless, you are that if you edit-war at this or any other article (you seem to distribute your battles), you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AVENVATGEOR reported by User:Antiochus the Great (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Similar behavior at HAL Tejas despite many warnings. The editor has engaged in excessive edit wars in these two articles for the past ~2 weeks, with unsourced or OR material. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . The user's recent activity breached WP:3RR. The edits to Hal Tejas, which were about a week ago, were vandalism., please follow the instructions at the top of this page about creating a report. You must provide diffs of the reverts by the reported user. In this instance, the problem was so obvious once I looked at the history that I did your work for you, but I could have simply marked this report as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Lips Are Movin (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is violating a guideline at WP:CHARTS which I have clearly stated in bold on the article's talk page but is having difficulty reading and understanding the guideline and insists on edit warring. -Lips Are Movin (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read 3RR. If I take action against the other editor, I will block you too. It would spoil both of your clean block logs. I'm protecting the page as of right now till you guys sort it out on the talk page. Other than that, read our edit warring policy. If talk page discussions don't work out, follow dispute resolution.  Wifione  Message 11:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have resolved the dispute. I've dropped my side of the argument on Meghan Trainor discography. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Rourlme reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Pirate Bay. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

continues edit warning against consensus after edit warning block Avono (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could any links to the pirate bay maybe be blacklisted (i.e thepiratebay.*)? We had around 4 SPA's trying to push unofficial websites, this continues even after I made a wiki comment next to the url in the infobox :( Avono (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the guidelines are but a blacklist request should be made at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war reported by User:Twofortnights (Result:Decline; semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

There is an edit war by several users going on at Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates, so I guess it should be protected. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The report here is malformed. You might want to go to WP:RFPP to request page protection.  only (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if the request is malformed you can't decline it for what is a purely technical issue because the edit warring is taking place there and this IS a noticeboard for edit warring - diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff - all in 24 hours. If you think protecting this page will take too much of your free time then just ignore this notice, don't decline it.
 * Also I see a few decisions on this page saying "page protected" so I don't think you are right that such a decision can't be made here. Is this a typical bureaucratic sending off of a good Samaritan to another window? I mean why don't you go to WP:RFPP and report it there? Or at least move my request to the appropriate place? Because I only noticed it, I didn't take part in it, so I am as obliged to go around Wikipedia chasing the right bureaucratic window as you are.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thanks User:Bbb23 for protecting the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , you created a report here without following the instructions. You didn't report a particular user. You didn't include diffs until after the fact, and then you lash out at the admin for not doing your work for you. Yes, nothing obliges you to report this, but if you're going to report it, then do it right. Some leeway may be given for malformed reports, but that is up to the administrator evaluating the report, and in this instance the administrator's decision was completely in process. In any event, I've semi-protected the article for 10 days because more than one IP is involved in the battle. I'm also closing this report to further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You criticize me for "lashing out" by literally lashing out at me? And then closing the discussion you've just started? Anyway - my work? How exactly is it my work? I didn't have any obligation whatsoever. Aren't we supposed to always have our actions here directed at improving Wikipedia? How exactly does it serve Wikipedia to ignore a serious ongoing issue because the report wasn't filed the right way per whatever bureaucratic rule? In my book, even if the report was filed in a completely wrong place it should be addressed, and this was like calling the police by accident and telling them about a heart attack and them coldly saying "The number you have dialed is of the police service. Please dial 123 for the emergency medical service". How can respect for the procedure take precedent over the respect for the purpose of those procedures? All these bureaucratic procedures are in place to make functioning easier, but if they sometimes slow it all down or make it harder, then they should be ignored.
 * Anyway, all rhetoric questions above, as you've closed the discussion, but please, I really beg you to read this - so you can find out why this attitude is not appreciated to the extent it is destroying Wikipedia. I know I am not conveying the message, I am not good at it at all, I've had many issues before with people who would take offense, but that above is a piece by a professional journalist, so please ignore me, and read that. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 20 December 2014
 * 1)  removing discussion
 * 2) removing discussion
 * 3) removing discussion
 * 4) removing discussion

on 17 December 2014 on 16 December 2014:
 * 1) 638560143 removing discussion
 * 2) 638562696
 * 3) 638563043
 * 4) 638563669
 * 5) 638567776
 * 6) 638568974
 * 7) 638568552
 * 8) 638568974
 * 1) 638334298
 * 2) 638415381
 * 3) 638489648

on 9 December 2014
 * 1) 637301643
 * 2) 637308036
 * 3) 637387020

Edit war warnings:  

on 30 November 2014:
 * 1) 636012427
 * 2) 636012830
 * 3)
 * 4) 636014925
 * 5) 636085219
 * 6) 636085598

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Problem editor gaming the system and flying under the radar for years, pushing POV, disrespecting consensus guidelines, talk guidelines, and edit warring with numerous editors repeatedly. For ultima ratio will alter any content claiming WP:PA --Wuerzele (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a warning related to November 30 edit warring:
 * The current problem worth noting also is that since 9 December 2014 there is an ongoing NPOV dispute related to the lead section of the Bitcoin article, during which User:Fleetham made several edits to the lead section.
 * As an example, take . This edit is particularly interesting in that it disrespects the consensus built in Talk:Bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note also that the editwarring is observable at both the Talk:Bitcoin page as well as at the Bitcoin page. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different, but he's reverting inclusion of material that is, in my view, unnecessarily personally attacking. If you want to complain about resolution of the content dispute,, you can do so without your history of Fleetham's "disruption"; indeed, in one part you even called it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, I dont understand why you say "If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different". Fleetham is edit warring on Bitcoin per the diffs from 16 Dec, 10 Dec, 30 Nov. He had been warned by admin  in the December ANI that he was editwarring, and yet he did it again.
 * I am sorry to involve you in a situation that is quite multilayered and protracted, but I chose this the 3RR noticeboard, because 3RR seems the most straightforward to prove to someone, who is not participating on the Bitcoin page and seeing the dynamics day to day.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:VandVictory reported by User:Justice007 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Following no rules.


 * First edit was not a revert, I would've tagged the last source as as well, but the user may not be aware of it. While none of these concerns about the sources have been resolved, I would say that they must remain and the page should be protected as per my request on WP:RFPP that I had made half an hour ago.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell Justice if you are not edit warring? You are also using the most absurd references like blogspot. VandVictory (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 5 edits by VandVictory. Maybe new reference need more debate other references are part of RFC dispute why is he not discussion in RFC why is he tagwarring. --- The SawTooth  (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Justice has also made 5 edits and made false edit summaries, his intention was to remove tags so that these sources may sound real. RFC is not about the sources, it is about the validity of result. Discussion is there and you have equally failed to provide any explanations. VandVictory (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Justice has not done 5 revisions. You are making revision edits my friend. --- The SawTooth (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He is just edit warring without signing in. VandVictory (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who? There are much IP and account users on this topic. --- The SawTooth (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked user to undo revision but he has revised even more. I move that this user be stopped from editing for some time. --- The SawTooth  (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am curious about this edit, must have been used by any one of the experienced editor who knew how to remove maintenance tags efficiently.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 6 revision . --- The SawTooth (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 8 of Justice, and he is still using fake edit summaries. VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is unbelievable editwar VaV is into with the IP and three editors; having done 15 reverts (he has also reverted my singleton restore of pre-edit war stable version). Blatantly against WP:EW... discussing or not, he and the IP have crossed all limits. FYI, justice did only two reverts and an unrelated new addition (not rv) and does not even live in Pakistan for the IP to be his.. atleast do some homework. I also suggest that VaV's version be plain out reverted before locking the page under IAR just to not give him the satisfaction of getting his version locked in (an obvious thing to happen with so many editors involved), though a block of VaV and the IP will make an equal, perhaps better, argument. To note further in favour of the latter option, the article wasn't under editwar anymore even with contentious disagreement rather an RFC was being pursued now, and VaV's silly tag editwar tends to disrupt the process by stirring things up likely even creating hostility between editors engaged in discussion. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Block becomes unnecessary if the page is going to be protected. It is less of a matter that how many people have edit warred for removing maintenance templates. URLs of blogspots are particularly removed on sight.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Page protected now.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm keeping this report open for some time more. The protection has been lifted. I'm watching the page to start blocking anybody and everybody who edit wars. The levels of edit warring are shocking on the page.  Wifione  Message 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I "wondered" whether the IP 223.29.225.35 was actually a logged out but involved editor... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't tell. But I've blocked one two editors already out there. Watching further and keeping this open.  Wifione  Message 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 223.29.225.35 was also TheSawTooth. Because his last one removed issue tags just like he did with the IP all the time. Now he is not able to abuse that ip because he is blocked now. VandVictory (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to make allegations and connect IPs to real users. If you have issues about socking, take it to SPI. Other than that, you are close to getting blocked yourself, given the history of your edit warring. Do be careful and stop reverting. I don't want to invoke sanctions on the page unless the edit warring again gets over the top.  Wifione  Message 11:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Victory You accuse Justice now me. I have "remember password" option check in my computer I do not log out. Do not accuse every one turn by turn people use IPs it is not necessary to create account. he revised me that I am blocked but no other reason of revision he is at 16RR revision. I was not blocked when I made edit. It is part of editwar to revise legitimate revision of blocked editor. I move that you review him. Thank you. --- The SawTooth  (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * by .   Wifione  Message 09:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

174.95.71.196 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This user continues to add content that has no relevance to the article and show. It keeps reverting edits of revert by me and another user. Though, I have not tried to resolve the issue via the article's talk page, I felt it would be useless if the IP address has never responded to our edit summaries messages and their talk page. UPDATE: the editor has returned, ignoring ALL warnings, including from another user whom is currently reverting them. (I added the difference as proof) Callmemirela ( talk ) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Victor Victoria reported by User:Helpsome (Result: 31h)
Where's the beef?:

Victor Victoria:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have not been involved in this but found it via recent changes. It appears that nobody editing the article wants this information that Victor Victoria continues to add and it has been explained on the talk page. After I gave the edit war warning, Victor Victoria blanked it and then continued edit warring. Helpsome (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Thinkmaths reported by User:Vigyani (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639157544 by Bladesmulti (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 639157262 by Bladesmulti (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* See also */"
 * 4)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Apart from pointing WP:BRD using edit summary, I had warned the editor against edit-warring which they responded by assuming bad-faith, terming other editors as part of a group and a tit for tat warning on my talk page.--Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vigyani, User:Sarvajna and User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Thinkmaths (Result: nominator blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:, and  for igniting a possible edit-war.


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute logically and rationally on the article talk page:

Thinkmaths has breached 3RR and shows battleground mentality. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 09:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt 20123 reported by User:Areaseven (Result: Warned & subsequently blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "its not going to happen."
 * 2)  "leave it like it was in the beginning."
 * 1)  "leave it like it was in the beginning."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Spectre (2015 film). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

3RR violation. User also deleted a prior warning about this violation on his Talk page Areaseven (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This user is also making many other pointless edits that go against the relevant MOS for film articles without any reason why. Their talkpage history is worth a read too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now continuing with disruptive edits on the article Kill Me Three Times. I've asked him here and here for explinations, but he blanked his talkpage. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've warned . Relatively new user. Matt's crossed 3RR. So have you . Please be careful and do not revert again. Wifione  Message 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Relatively new user? You're kidding me. Look at his contribution history.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Lugnuts. If he reverts again without discussing, just ping me and I'll block. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks . First edit back and reverts the edits and then blanks his talkpage. Still no explination for removing the use dmy and Use Australian English tags.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , Ditto on Spectre again. Looks like the warning isn't enough here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Come back if the behaviour continues. The subsequent blocks will be scaled up in case the editor refuses to acknowledge the issue and refuses to discuss changes.  Wifione  Message 09:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I'm sure either I or will ping if he continues after his return. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Wifione.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Raducanandreea reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See also ongoing SPI involving this user at Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti‎.
 * (full) for 10 days. I reverted the reported user because the material is a copyright violation (copied from other wikis and perhaps other pages, not sure). I can't block the user for edit warring as you,, responded tit for tat. Meanwhile, the SPI will run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Racudanandreea has now been indef blocked by User:Callanecc for abusing multiple accounts. I'll ask User:Bbb23 if the protection of the article can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Totocol reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:51, 20 December 2014‎
 * 2)   05:15, 21 December 2014
 * 3)  01:59, 22 December 2014‎
 * 4)  08:03, 22 December 2014
 * 5)   08:53, 22 December 2014
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He opened RFC, yet he is edit warring, Talk:Satyananda_Saraswati. Bladesmulti (talk)


 * Comments:
 * Result: No action, since User:Totocol has agreed to abstain from updating the article again until January 15. See this comment. It is unclear whether any material should be added to the article based only on a primary source -- the proceedings of a Royal Commission in Australia. User:Totocol, you should consider getting an opinion at WP:RSN before making any further attempt to restore this material. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Airborne84 (Result: Withdrawn in favor of ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Although Jimjilin appears to be engaging in edit warring now at the noted article, I'm less concerned about this article and more concerned about the pattern she/he has established. I'm requesting advice specifically about that. There is a lengthy record (going back about 2 1/2 years) of reports of edit warring and blocks from the same on Jimjilin's user page. If Jimjilin doesn't understand the policies regarding edit warring and 3RR at this point, no one does. Yet Jimjilin continues to engage in edit warring. Is there a longer-term solution for this? Perhaps a longer block with a request to review Wikipedia's policies and a stronger warning to cease future edit warring? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the notice about this thread on 's talk page when I went to leave a message about removing text based only on a dead link. Looking through the talk page/edit history (and recalling past interactions at satanic ritual abuse and elsewhere), the overwhelming number of POV edits and ensuing edit wars over a period of years -- most of which stop short of 3RR violations -- suggest a pattern that may be better addressed via WP:ANI. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have listed it there and don't mind if an admin closes the thread here. Airborne84 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Stevenpanameno reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 2)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 3)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 4)  "/* Series overview */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * here


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on uer's talk page:
 * here


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly changing the colors in the series overview table of the TV episode list article, without discussing such changes on the article's talk page first; several other editors have warned the user on the user's talk page regarding this matter; I have also warned the user for separate issues in the same article, more than a week ago, but this user exhibits a pattern of disruptive editing. The user has also performed similar disruptive edits (color changes) at List of Austin & Ally episodes and List of Dog with a Blog episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained by MPFitz1968, the user has been changing colours without explanation or discussion at multiple pages. Despite the fact that he had been given a final warning for this, I noticed that nobody had actually discussed the problem with him, which is why I posted this to his talk page. However, he chose not to discuss the matter and again changed colours at List of Jessie episodes, several hours after my post. The change may seem minor, but the editor doesn't seem to want to collaborate, insisting on his, incorrect, change. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Heuh0 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Continuation of []


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  talk:B-theory of time/* Reasons for removal of William Craig content */"
 * 2)  user talk:TMDrew 20:00, 22 December 2014
 * Comments:

This user has been warned by administrators before regarding precisely this page. The user continues to edit contrary to consensus, continues to harass and now accuses me of sockpuppetry. Previous issue handled by Wifione TMD   Talk Page.  11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are persistently vandalising, I have reported you, but until you are blocked, you will continue to remove content and vandalise the page, hence my need for reverting your edits. There is no war as there is no dispute. Doc H e u h (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Full story & full examples of persistent vandalism:

When I came across the B-theory of time, it was in extremely poor condition, it mostly contained information regarding A-series of time (despite there being a page on A-series and B-series), additionally there was a single paragraph on the physics support B-theory has (which is where is had become popular recently) as opposed to A-thoery which is less scientific and popular with other groups, and the physics potentially behind B-theory. The remaining (50%) writing on the page was several paragraphs on William Craig a somewhat Christian fundamentalist, theologian philosopher. The article described his opinions on the theory, and there are a number of problems with that.

The first problem is that most of the paragraphs did not even state that those beliefs were Craig or even that they were beliefs, for example, "B theory suffers a incoherence as all other theories, that time is illusionary. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming", except this was not stated as a belief of Craig but or as opinion/belief at all, but as a fact outright, (note Craig (a Christian) making a dig at Buddhist philosophy).

The second is much more fundamental, the problem is that this type of writing does not belong on this type of page. The page is an academic page on Physics and scientific philosophy. The theme of the views (which were Craig's) were aggressive, they were also written in a format that mislead the reader into thinking this was by far the general consensus, or a major position on the matter (to give you an idea what I',m talking about, Craig views (though some not even stated as views) were placed in the description of B-theory section as opposed to a new section on opposition). The 'philosophy' certainly wasn't worth any recognition in the academic community, and hence hasn't been. Reword the paragraphs you say? Well, most of it was even beyond that, it was just babble that had no academic founding, it was mostly juts random ranting (read it yourself). Craig has also been criticised by the academic community for pushing A-theory. The fact is the page was not much philosophy but a collection of Craig's religous-oriented rants and opinions (for lack of a better word). It was the type of information that belonged Craig biographical page under 'views and opinion' rather than a academic page. I should note that there was perhaps one small paragraph potentially worth keeping which I kept, however after further reading the statements contracted themselves, Craig argued against yet his quotes supported the theory, additionally the book where these views were from was a book, was won theories of time but also on the physics behind them. The book was completely rejected by the community and labelled pseudoscientific (books reviews also tell of this, particularly Craig completely misunderstanding relativity).

User:TMDrew had continuously reverted these edits, time and time again, he was also responsible, for putting the Craig information in, in the first place.

I have given reason for said edits on his talk page, the B-thoery of time talk page, and on edit 'reasons'. I placed a vandalism warning on his page which he then took to an admin board, which I then had to explain his vandalisation there (admittedly I was wrong, and somewhat guilty in entering an edit war).

Despite me giving reasons for removing the content, User:TMDrew continuously undid my edits. It was then I noticed that User:TMDrew is a Christian, and I do believe he may have some sort of personal conflict or personal agenda with the article. He is continuously adding information (Craig's ranting) onto the page that does not belong, he has worded it in ways that mislead the reader into thinking they were facts supported by the community, and (here's the kicker) in his one of his most recent edit HE REMOVED THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC PARAGRAPH on the page. Leaving only ranting by a religious philosopher and a small section on A-thoery. This is obvious vandalism and he is clearly serving a personal agenda. After the vandalisation warning it had seemed to have solved itself, however, a short while ago, an IP address, undid the edits changing the page back to its original form, removing scientific content, adding religious babble, and portraying Craig's views a the consensus and sometimes stated as facts. It should be noted the IP address immediately commented on the conversation on the talk page between myself (Heuh) and User:TMDrew, commenting in a fashion and opinion extremely similar to TMDrew, he undid the edits in a very similar way to TMDrew, and his contribution list also records only the edit we are talking about now. It is clear this is TMDrew trying to appear as a third opinion. This is clearly disruptive behaviour.

Since this happened I have considerably tidied up the article and creating an article of a quality much higher than it was before. However, TMDrew keeps returning the article to its original state containing only babble about A-theory and religious and aggressive rants from Craig. Despite the fact that Craig's material doesn't belong, it demonstrates this users obvious vandalism, as a productive (but still wrong) user would edit the page to include Craig's views instead of reverting days of work entirely. I have since tried to edit the page to include some of Craig's views, though worded correctly, as quoted opinions, and not including the obvious religious rants about why Buddhism philosophies of time are inferior to the Christian version.

You merely need to read the version that user:TMDrew put in on Craig, to understand how awful it really is (be sure to notice the deliberate degrading of the rest of the article aswell). There is no dispute going on here, just someone vandalising, and someone trying there best to keep the vandalisation under control.

It should be noted from looking talk page he has had numerous disputes over this with User:Mojowiha, where User:TMDrew has removed previously vandalised the page, removing the physics information behind the theory, telling the reader that the theory wasn't supported by physics when it was. User:Mojowiha also had problems with User:TMDrew's editing in regards to Craig, and has to post vandalisation warning on his page (from the looks of it, User:Mojowiha from desperation. From what I have seen User:TMDrew is serving personal agenda.

To get a grasp of what kind of user User:TMDrew is, he regularly wipes his talk page to not show his conitnous vandalisation warnings and seeming obsession over Craig. He has fraudulently awarded himself a Barnstar of Diligence (you can see this by viewing his user page edit history), posing as a user named 'Bobby' (obviously with no linked profile). The reason I am telling you all of this is because I want to demonstrate that this is obvious vandalism. He has also (in this same argument) logged out to appear as his IP address, and I believe operates an alternate account User:Apologeticsaurus Rex. The reason or which is User:TMDrew awarded User:Apologeticsaurus Rex with a barnstar BEFORE HE MADE A SINGLE EDIT. THIS is the type of user you are dealing with here.

I realise this is not a page to report vandalism, but I believe the full story is needed to show you what is really going on. The report in general is ridiculous since the last report (which I will admit I was in the wrong, I should have reported him straight away, instead of edit warring), but since the last report, there has been ONE, only one revert, a revert of a case of obvious vandalism (adding opinions as fact, highly bias POV (removing information showing majority support for B-theory), removing some scientific information, and degrading quality of article in other areas.) There simply HASN'T BEEN AN EDIT WAR. Thanks. Doc H e u h (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The concensus was to keep all the offline stuff in development section"
 * 2)  "Merged offline to development section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 639160398 by McGeddon (talk) The offline mode was a backer request, it was never the original plan and should be in the dev section.  I also just supplied the evidence."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 639168631 by McGeddon (talk) I stated other reasons for not having that section which shouldn't be ignored"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Reverting other editors */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Single player offline mode / refunds


 * Comments:

Edit warring a section merge with false claims of consensus, offering no contribution to the talk thread on the subject beyond some bad-faith/paranoia about Reddit and Wikipedia users who "deliberately want to sabotage the game by blowing this offline thing out of proportion". Editor has a history of flat reverting rather than discussing, on this article. McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite reported by User:VersoArts (Result:No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People&oldid=639016932

User:BGWhite will NOT talk on article page. Only has discussions on his personal page. But with me he does not answer period. He doesn't make any reference to changes he makes. I thought I was making mistakes in editing. All of a sudden I'm attacked early this morning about everything.

Comments:Only has discussions on his personal page. But with me he does not answer period. He doesn't make any reference to changes he makes. These things just disappear. Or the formatting is deleted. And this is a major restructuring. I thought I was making mistakes in editing. All of a sudden I'm attacked verbally early this morning about everything. He does this with others to get them blocked. I'm thinking it has to do with subject matter he doesn't like. VersoArts (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition now I recall that the first time I was in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry. VersoArts (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is Bgwhite edit-warring with you? They have made a grand total of six edits to the article; four or five of which are to remove HTML formatting and replace it with wikicode, one of those edits removed an unnecessary section, and the other edit was to remove that section again. Meanwhile, you have made a mediocre article even worse in my opinion, with a huge amount of unsourced stuff being added, in a poorly formatted and unencyclopedic way. Quite why this article needs a timeline with every tiny thing on it is beyond me. It is also very poorly formatted, despite Bgwhite's efforts.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited on the article's talk page, so I don't know how I could in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry. Entries can't be deleted.
 * I left a discussion on VersoArts talk page (User talk:VersoArts) before they filed this ANI report. Message was on why I reverted.  Not sure how that means I'm not talking.  I also don't know what they are trying to say in their response to my message.
 * They left six message on my talk page after I left a message on their talk page. The six message came within a two hour time period.  The last one states, Again you chose to make the edits without responding. And I see that you get into warring positions outside of any involvement you have with articles. This may be done for blocking editors from articles you don't prefer. I am making a request for mediation before you entrap.   Sigh, I guess if I'm sleeping I must respond or I'll entrap them. Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you a mediator??? User:Lukeno94 VersoArts (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "In your OPINION"? Are you an experienced mediator? User:Lukeno94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersoArts (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Lukeno94Let's start from your added conflicts. What are the areas of "huge amount of unsourced stuff" as you say. What "stuff" is unsourced? VersoArts (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bgwhite isn't edit warring here as Lukeno94 pointed out. Just because he's making edits you disagree with doesn't mean he's edit warring with you.  Also, you write "In addition now I recall that the first time I was in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry" but I don't see where this occurred at all in the talk page's history.  only (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoever entered the last comment of "No Violation" above should SIGN it.VersoArts (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Bgwhite Lukeno94
 * ....I did. only (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that he's making edits I don't agree with. He's making edits that are based on his limited knowledge of what's allowed on Wiki as MarkUp. And he's making COI a part of an edit on content. Also as me being a newbie, he's stepping on the toes of policy in Wiki about behavior. This is what he does. Goes and picks on newbies on Wiki as an administrator/editor making the issue muddled. He has no right to state he won't talk on Article TALK pages so he can be abusive on people's personal pages. VersoArts (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @(only Who was this person "User:Lukeno94"? Is an unknown biased third person allowed in mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersoArts (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:212.200.65.244 reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported: and

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

On 2nd article:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've warned him several times in my edit summaries. Did not warn him on talk page until very recently where I made clear I will report him ->

Comments:

I came upon this user late last night. He is involved in edit war on several articles. I also strongly believe, looking from the edit history on several articles that this user has at least two registered accounts -> and. He seems to think the fact that he logs in and out of his account makes him invisible. Shokatz (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Deku-shrub reported by User:CorporateM (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Editor has continually added content I believe to be non-neutral and poorly-sourced since the article's creation in September. A look at the edit-history shows large deletions of his content first by user:Schematica, then user:Wikidemon, then myself, but in each case similar content is restored shortly afterwards. I've asked the editor repeatedly to discuss their edits first, especially given a history of them being removed by myself and others, but the editor has continued posting similar content using guest blogs, forums, primary sources and sites with sketchy RS/NPOV and an edit-war seems to be emerging between the two of us.

I think it would be useful if the page was protected, so that consensus can be established before further edits are made to prevent the emerging edit-war (I was about to revert again, but I think we're probably verging on a 3RR type situation). CorporateM (Talk) 12:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a new tier of Wiki-bureaucracy than I'm used to. Obviously you know what my goal is and I suppose I'm not doing it the correct format. Did you want me to take each of your item by item edits and defend them one by one? What's the best way to approach this? Deku-shrub (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I'd strongly recommend seeking one or more forms of dispute resolution. Repeatedly reverting the edits of others is considered edit warring and can result in your being blocked. -- slakr \ talk / 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:J.A.R. Huygebaert reported by User:Nihonjoe (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (there were some other edits made in addition to the reverting)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) hasn't made the fourth one yet, but I suspect it will only be a matter of a short time since he seems to think he owns the article (based on these comments:, ,  (in this one he benevolently deigns to allow some of the edits I've tried to make))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Brandon Sanderson (there's a discussion happening, but mostly just him saying he won't allow anyone to change things, in so many words)

Comments:

He's also reintroducing wrong information as he's cherry-picking information to include. I had corrected the type of short work on various titles (short story, novelette, novella), and that's been undone as well. Caidh participated a little in trying to keep the updates and changes I made, but his edit was reverted, too (it's one of the diffs above). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see your point of "why you had to correct the type of short work". I know what a short story and novella is, and added those to the titles like it has to be. And is a novelette not the same as a novella? By the way, all your edits on the article are present, I think, no? I don't really see the reason for all this chaos. Add whatever you want, as is your right, but do it good. Wikipedia makes use of references for a reason, so why include lines of text in a bibliography on a book which will only be published in like... 5 years?--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion of what to include or not goes over on the article talk page, just to keep everything together. The only thing to be discussed here is your edit warring behavior. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: 31h)
Page:

Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is typical REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. See: Magocsi, Trudy Ring, ‎Noelle Watson, ‎Paul Schellinger, Boris Florya etc."
 * 2)  "It is an absurd, I bring you sources and arguments, you show me nothing. See Paul Robert Magocsi and stop this circus"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 639112103 by Boguslavmandzyuk (talk)"
 * 4)  "You may not ignore reliable sources without any another reliable sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nikolai Gogol. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2014 */"
 * 3)   "/* December 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Russification */"
 * 2)   "/* Russification */ ce - clarity of point"


 * Comments:

The editor has been edit warring on various articles related to Ukrainian subject matter and refuses to engage in discussion on the corresponding talk pages. While he has breached 3RR on two articles, this is a slow and determined edit war.

Where he does introduce sources, they are WP:CHERRY in order to shoehorn Russification of the subject-matter. Generic volumes without peer reviews and blatantly WP:BIASED sources are not WP:RS and the editor has been reverted by various other editors insisting that his sources must be refuted (which they have been). Further discussions and warning have been left by me on his talk page for some time. Despite my request that he take the discussions of content refactoring to the relevant talk page, the user continues to treat it as a personal dispute with me in ES and challenges on his own talk page, thereby not providing an opportunity for other editors to determine and comment on what is going on. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DonaldKronos reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Evolution

Comments:

User is displaying issues with WP:AGF and WP:OWN, taking the reversions far too personally, and not listening to any explanations for the reversions. DonaldKronos has responded hostilely calling the multiple users who reverted him vandals. New user that everyone has tried patiently to explain things, but he clearly has no interest in cooperation or collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:DonaldKronos does seem like a man on a mission. If he continues a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How does one reason with an editor who describes reverting, with explanations, his (contentious) edits as "an attack on humanity"?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – Three days. The editor is now trying to fork Evolution over to Biological evolution though he clearly lacks consensus. It seems that an indef block is possible if he continues to apply this level of zeal to putting his own unique stamp on heavily-trafficked and long-established articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Gowtham avg reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639199101 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 639190093 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 639054499 by Davey2010 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Chutti TV. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit Warring */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I orginally reported the user roughly a month ago but had withdrawn as he stopped, Well once again he prefers to edit war over discussing, I've twice left (admittingly not the most perfect!) edit summaries as well as left him a message which fully explains the issue  but instead of discussing the issue he prefers to edit war, Looking at his talkpage I'm not the only person to have had issues with his behaviour and to some extent it seems he has some WP:OWNERSHIP with the article.

The issue is I converted the entire programme list to 3 columns as well as delinked the redlinked programmes which he's reverted 3 times without any explanation, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 07:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Upon investigation, this is neither the first time nor the only other editor with whom the editor's been warring on that page. -- slakr \ talk / 23:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:YourLogicalFallacy reported by User:George Ho (Result: protected / warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:24, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Probably one IP editor is the same person who created this username, but I'm uncertain. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy twice requested changes at the talk page. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * by another admin; no changes since the warning (though the user's prolly not autoconfirmed yet, so if he resumes, either update this or open another quick report). -- slakr \ talk / 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:BT80 (Result: nominating editor warned)

 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The_Drovers_Wife is re-verting my edits using a BOT called TM BT80 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This user is essentially vandalising: he's spamming completely contextless tags across tons of articles without edit summaries or explanations, he's been pulled up by at least five editors on his own talk page, and his behaviour so far has been to ignore everyone and keep on going. The tags need to be removed unless he adds some kind of explanation as to why he thinks they have the issues they have (because it isn't obvious in any way), and if he keeps going he really needs to be blocked for vandalism. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm seeing your edits as clearly becoming disruptive in nature and in several instances blankly edit warring, both of which are problematic, and, if you continue, it will result in your being blocked. Typically, the cycle of dispute resolution involves a cycle of bold-revert-discuss. At this point, several editors have reverted your initial changes and have now asked you to discuss instead of en masse tagging articles. You now need to discuss instead of continuing in order to gain consensus for your actions. Otherwise, the assumption is going to be that you have no intent to discuss or adhering to our other guidelines and policies. -- slakr \ talk / 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:158.106.83.18 reported by User:MadGuy7023 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: (DWTS)  (AAT:FGW)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts (newest to oldest):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)  "Undid revision 639345215 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 639343961 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 639342938 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 639100886 by Msalmon (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19). (using TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: *none

I previously reported this IP here, but they have now returned with another IP. They are edit warring on two pages, which I will include every proof. Reverts will continue until this IP is stopped somehow. Callmemirela ( talk ) 15:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 23:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lindi29 reported by User:Local hero (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported: [also editing as IP ; ; ]

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * (full) for one week. I would have semi-protected it but one of the battling editors, who is in a clear minority, is auto-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:76.110.153.151 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Topp Dogg. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

IP edit-warring without discussion adding fancruft in poor English with incorrect punctuation. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Article #1:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Article #2:
 * 1) (IP user, but most likely it is MiGR25)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user was just created and its only activity is the removal of sourced text from two articles. The arguments from the revert summaries are on the level of "I don't like it." There was no attempt to initiate any discussion. I warned MiGR25 about 3RR and suggested to start a discussion before reverting. MiGR25's response was to copy and paste my warning word for word on my talk page (not only the template, but the comments I added after). The use of links to wiki policies in revert summaries indicates that this is not a genuinely new user who is not aware of the rules. So the user is highly disruptive and it looks like someone created a SPA to remove specific text from the two articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * "There was no attempt to initiate any discussion"
 * There was a dissucsion:Talk:Battle_of_Berlin yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: Soviet_war_crimes, Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany; Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945 without any acknowledge to the consensus of an WP:NPOV just because (you) I don't like it


 * <p style="line-height:100%; width:"> YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * <p style="line-height:100%; width:"> [Y]ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * <p style="line-height:100%; width:"> I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06)


 * So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.


 * It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect.  "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus.  On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.


 * MiGR25 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part.
 * For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May. -YMB29 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This report is ironic given own propensity in engaging in slow burn edit wars to push dubious viewpoints while attempting to exhaust opponents with long intractable discussion on the article talk pages. For example, recently in the article Winter War (with discussion on Talk:Winter_War):
 * 20:14, 4 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636582381 by Gwafton (talk) This looks like a case of WP:IJDLI... Prove your argument on the talk page before reverting.)
 * 21:40, 3 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636435465 by Gwafton (talk) Your opinion on what is largely accepted is not an excuse to revert existing text without any discussion.)
 * 23:44, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Restored reverted text. I recommend that you don't revert text you don't like without any agreement. I can also say that the other view is a theory not worth mentioning.)
 * 21:28, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Reverted. This view is just as significant as the other one. It has been in the text for over a year. No consensus to remove it.)
 * 19:58, 1 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636149692 by 192.171.4.126 (talk) unexplained revert)
 * Seems WP:Boomerang would apply here. --Nug (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are trying to switch attention from the issue here. What is wrong with my reverts above?
 * Are you wikistalking me? How do you explain your sudden interest in the Winter War article?
 * You also followed MiGR25's reverts and made a similar revert to his in the Berlin: The Downfall 1945 article (using a similar revert summary) even before MiGR25 got to the page. This leads me to think that you are working together with him/her or MiGR25 is your SPA and you signed into the wrong username to make that revert...
 * How am I pushing "dubious" viewpoints if the other users come in and revert well sourced text that has been in the articles for a long time? WP:BRD applies there.
 * The Winter War article had the same problem with a user reverting existing text that he did not like. However, he stopped reverting and decided to discuss. -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, extremely dubious, the source you are pushing from a Russian government website claims only 72 German women were raped in total by Soviet forces in the entire campaign to conquer Germany in 1945, that's right, seventy two. Editors strongly objected back in May, just because you were able to sneak it into other articles doesn't mean the consensus against it has changed. --Nug (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sneak it in? You and others have edited the articles many times since. Users have even reworded that specific text. If something was wrong with the source, it would have been reverted by now and not by this "new" user. So are you still going to claim that you only noticed this text now, when this SPA started reverting it?
 * The source does not claim that "only 72 German women were raped in total." This is not mentioned in the articles, so you are just repeating MiGR25's dubious statement from a revert summary.
 * Anyway, you are simply trying to turn this into a content dispute and divert attention from the actions of this "new" user, whom you support. I hope that admins will note this. -YMB29 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source you claim is reliable states:
 * "Я привожу цифры, характеризующие это положение по 7 армиям нашего фронта: общее количество бесчинств со стороны военнослужащих в отношении местного населения, зафиксированных по этим 7 армиям, 124, из них: изнасилований немецких женщин – 72, грабежей -38, убийств – 3, прочих незаконных действий – 11»"
 * which translates to:
 * "I quote figures on this position for seven armies of our front: the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11."
 * Such a bogus claim calls into question the general reliability of the source. --Nug (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing bogus about that is your interpretation. She is talking about documented cases only for the 1st Belorussian Front in a two week span in Berlin.
 * A historian can't cite documents? Again, where were you before with your criticism? You need to stop trolling. This is off topic. -YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to belive whatever is on your distorted mind, but keep any false accusation and personal attacks WP:NPA out of the disscusion. I'm neither an alt account, nor an advanced wikiuser and definitely not a SPA. Anyone with a objective and impartially WP:NPV would acknowledge the consensus how biased and one sided Yelena Senyavskaya scathing hypothesis is. Starting with the first source give at Battle_of_Berlin and the disscuion Talk:Battle_of_Berlin where She not only criticise Beevor, Bellamy and Grossmann studies, but giving dubious remarks. First source: The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels I want to qoute same figure as you: "the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11" and giving following date: from 22 April to 5 May 1945.


 * During the last days of the downfall and the weeks after, around 2,5 Million Red Army Soldiers and Personell where involved in the occupation of Berlin. How you can you receive an objective and unbiased analysis by examining solely 7 armies? For example, the 2nd Belorussian front, had 8 Armies under command filded around 319'000 mens, and a army per se, is given as a troop strenght of 50'000. Also, the same source indicates, that the approx. number of 2 million of all the raped womans during the whole conquer of Germany are just lies and invented by the Reichspropagandaminister Joseph Goebbels. The other source of Yelena Senyavskaya is not any better in the case, even when it consider a more analytical investigation: The Red Army in Europe in 1945 in the Context of Information War


 * You also contravened against the WP:3RR here: Berlin: The Downfall 1945: Revision history. Looks like a WP:BOOMERANG MiGR25 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't agree with a source, use the talk page. There is no excuse for just reverting text you don't agree with.
 * As for your claim that you are not someone's alternate account, your actions speak for themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to YMB29:
 * "If you don't agree with a source, use the talk page. There is no excuse for just reverting text you don't agree with." Listen, there was already a discussion ongoing on the talk page of Battle of Berlin with the acknowledged consensus by multiple User, except you, that the cited source of Yelena Senyavskaya, is heavy biased. Yet, months after a fanatical tug of war, you decided to hoodwink the disscusion and to widespred the same contested source to the following webpages: 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 This can be verified by reviewing your contributions. That's surely not in the sense of the Wiki netiquette of co-educational behavior.


 * Its tremendous to demand a new Talk-Page for each wikipage I numerated above, just because you did not like how the disscusion turned out for you. Yes, I did removed the content of the following pages: 1 ; 2 but I did not initiate the revert warring. It was you, because you dont like the removal of the contested scoure, even it was considered as heavy biased. MiGR25 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You started reverting just after registering and you accuse me of edit warring...
 * And again, for a new user you are too well aware of my editing history. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about content dispute, but edit warring and disruptive behavior by a user who just recently registered. MiGR25 and Nug are trying to switch the topic to confuse others. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion was already held at Talk:Battle_of_Berlin and and  opposed your dubious source at the time, but you still persisted in spraying your text across multiple articles. Nothing has changed, MiGR25 and I also oppose it today, that's four editors opposing your controversial text, but you are continuing your slow burn edit war even while this case is open here, . --Nug (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2014  (UTC)
 * How are discussions back from May relevant? A lot has changed since. The source was used in multiple articles since and has been there for months with other users modifying the text cited to it. If you want to change something the burden is now on you, see WP:BRD.
 * Again, there are a lot of questions about your involvement here. Why did you all of a sudden wake up to complain about the source now? Why did you follow me to the Winter War article? Why did you make that revert following MiGR25's lead ? Is MiGR25 your SPA? -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than abusing this board to get the upper hand in a content dispute and WP:PA claims that people are either stalking you or are some kind of SPA, perhaps you could accept that your controversial edits that give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion are opposed by many editors and cease and desist in attempting to sneak it under the radar into every article tangentially associated with the topic of the rape of German women. That would help. --Nug (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help if you don't try to remove valid text you simply don't like because of your specific POV. Colluding with a random "new" user (who you know is not behaving in a correct wiki way) to achieve this is especially low on your part.
 * The text and the source is in the articles. The view is significant, not a fringe one that can be excluded. You don't like it and want to remove it? Use the talk pages and go through dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "And again, for a new user you are too well aware of my editing history." You can't be serious, any User who is willing to spend time and revewing your and the contributions made at those site: 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 can see, that you hoodwink the previous disscusion to widespread the contested hypothesis on these sites. My removal of the contested content is legitimate, you still dont accept the outcome of the disscusion which why you have reverted my removals - which started the edit warring. MiGR25 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are still referring to an outdated discussion from May? We are not even talking about the Battle of Berlin article here. The dispute there was mostly about the wording, not that the source does not belong in the article.
 * Ok, so I guess you spent a long time reviewing my contributions for fun and then decided to register to revert some of them... -YMB29 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What ever consensus you imagined you had back in May clearly didn't exist then. Please accept that your edit which give way to much weight to a minority viewpoint has no consensus. --Nug (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please understand that you can't backtrack and claim that the edits I made half a year ago don't have consensus. The source and the text associated with it is present in all the mentioned articles, and no one was against it until MiGR25 started his reverting. I think you need to read WP:CONACHIEVE carefully to understand how consensus is achieved. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Rape during the occupation of Germany. Four reverts over several days from an account with only 18 edits. The last revert occurred while this 3RR report was open. User:MiGR25 is presumably a returning editor and is unlikely to be new to this dispute. All parties are advised to use the talk page. If reverting continues after the block expires there may be more admin actions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter_Görlitz reported by User:82.33.71.205 (Result: Warning. No block. Sigh.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I'm going to close this since nobody wants this shit on Christmas eve. Walter, you were wrong, and I will revert, since the IP gave a perfectly valid explanation and your edit summary, "revert unexplained removal of content", was thus completely incorrect. So, on the one hand, I will revert you, and on the other I will not block you so you can take the matter up on the talk page, if you feel thusly inclined. Merry Christmas to all. Sorry, Merry Christmas Eve. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. The anon's edits were made in with other edits and I didn't see a reason with the last edit in place. Merry Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Atifabbasi8 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [See first diff]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring to call ISIL an Islamic State and Caliphate, against calling them a rebel group, and ignoring hidden notes to do an RfC
 * 1)  - note says "do not change without a successful closed RfC"
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Page creations that are POV against consensus to legitimize ISIL - mostly one sentence stubs with poor or no sources:
 * 1) Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL)
 * 2) Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
 * 3) Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
 * 4) Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
 * 5) Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
 * 6) Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
 * 7) Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
 * 8) Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
 * 9) Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
 * 10) Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
 * 11) Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
 * 12) Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
 * 13) Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
 * 14) Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
 * 15) Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
 * 16) Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
 * 17) Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
 * 18) Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
 * 19) 2014 Iranian Airstrikes on ISIL in Eastern Iraq an unconfirmed event
 * 20) Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
 * 21) 2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya
 * 22) 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna originally a puff piece for the "Islamic State" but edited into a good article by others
 * 23) Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Created page with 'Islamic State is claimed itself to be a Islamic Caliphate from 2014-Present.It is first Caliphate having Air Force.'
 * 24) List of Caliphs of the Islamic State a list of 1 person?
 * 25) ISIL Caliphate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: multiple warnings on user talk page by various editors

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

Comments: This user operates a single purpose account dedicated to building credibility for the "Islamic State" and its structure and leadership. Wikipedia editors have widely rejected calling the group a state, or using "Islamic State", "Caliph" and "Caliphate" without qualification, but this editor refuses to follow this consensus. The consensus is reflected in the naming of all major ISIL articles and many talk discussions. It is reflected in the name of the Active Community Sanctions as well. Most of the junk articles have been redirected or deleted. I started an AfD for a group of them today. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:333-blue reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Top goalscorers */"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 639435111 by 333-blue (talk): References, yours is weird. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 639429763 by 333-blue (talk). (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Qed237 (talk): Or you move it into section's name (if you want with cite). (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Qed237 (talk): References can do that, can't they? (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2014–15 UEFA Champions League. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

He keeps modifying sources from more than one user despite warnings. There is no need to remopve cite template as proper way to source content. Also at 2014-15 Europa League <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Based on the user's history, there seems to be some incompetence mixed in with obvious stubbornness.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Knisfo reported by User:Mentoroso (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (user removing sourced material)
 * 1)  (user removing sourced material)
 * 1)  (user removing sourced material)
 * 1)  (user removing sourced material)

EDIT: User has been edit warring on other articles: and and and
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

(There are much more... but I refrained from adding them as it would be excessive) (User removed these edits on his talk page to hide all 4 warnings)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:
 * Comments:

User is exhibiting issues with WP:AGF and WP:OWN, taking the reversions personally, and not listening to any explanations for the reversions. Multiple editors have tried explain on the discussion page why they did the edits they did. His behaviour so far has been to ignore everyone and keep on going. He has also narrowly avoided the 3 revert rule multiple times (which is considered gaming the system per WP:EDITWARRING). He's also been editing out other sourced material.

EDIT: While consulting the User's history I discovered he also permanently hogs and reverts on the same articles. In multiple instances he inexplicably removes sourced material.—Mentoroso (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't list edits that are consecutive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User reverted my edit and told me to read the sources. Reading user's sources, I found those sources tell quite the opposite of what user writes in article. When I told them so  the user accused me of harassment.


 * Unlike user I linked sources that do not contradict my edits but support them. Then an IP reverted my edits, called them "unsourced" and "vandalism".


 * On the talk page the user contradicts themselves and when being told so they accuse others of misinforming.
 * User puts words in my mouth I haven't said - I said quite the opposite.


 * User saying about me: "His behaviour so far has been to ignore everyone and keep on going". - My contributions to the talk page:


 * User saying about me: "User is exhibiting issues with [...] WP:OWN.
 * Check my history The last three days I edited that article nine times. My last time before that was in summer this year.
 * Then check the user's history. They hardly edit any other article. So who is the one who wants to own that article ?Knisfo (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What the user does not say is that consensus had been achieved among 3 editors that we would make Kyrgyzstan (country in question) an "acceding member". Support for this by everyone but Knisfo had been achieved. He instead decided to vandalize and revert every possible edit to render the article incapable of any improvement—Mentoroso (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three days. More than one person seems to be edit warring. Why not get an agreement on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An agreement was achieved on the talk page. That the country in question would be considered an acceding state. However Knisfo keeps reverting edits. Also a very highly reliable source, the Financial Times, recently stated that the country IS a member now although its treaty comes fully into force in May. . I still think Knisfo's history of edit warring needs to be considered as he has not been held accountable for any of it.—Mentoroso (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:91.79.78.200 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 11:36, 24 December 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 18:01, 24 December 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 09:31, 25 December 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 14:32, 25 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Aleksandr Dugin has a discussion of whether it is correct to describe the subject of the article as a "fascist". Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:


 * only (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Imperial HRH2 (Result:Protected page)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&diff=639345031&oldid=639344903

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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

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

Comments:

User Suitcivil133 reverted multiple edits. He is going against consensus of all users and reverting edits without using any sources which support his reverts. Please see the history page for the article for a fuller picture. Also see the Talk page of the article where there are ongoing discussions.

Imperial HRH2 (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc has given it two days of full protection. only (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: No violation)
Disruptive Single Topic Edit of User Summichum 

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

This User has been editing Single topic of Dawoodi Bohra with his SPA Since he has joined the Wikipedia. Discrediting any other users who doesn't confirm to his POV

Since he has joined, The dawoodi bohra articles has become a warzone.

he is attempting to delete or disrupt all the other dawoodi bohra related article such as Moulai Abadullah,Fakhruddin Shaheed,Moulai Hasan Fir,Mohammed Burhanuddin and other related articles. Comments:

There are so many differences that I think it would be better if the Admin just look this users history of edits.

Diff:[]

he is assuming the ownership of the dawoodi bohra articles as shown above.Rukn950 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 'No violation. Summichum is not a single purpose account.  There is no violation of EW or 3RR on any of these articles.  And then there's this. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:98.217.155.45 (Result:No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is displaying issues with WP:AGF and pedantry, making draconian reversions, and not listening to any reasoning or explanations for the reversions. I have tried patiently to explain things, but he clearly has no interest in cooperation or collaboration and, keeps deleting statements that are obvious reasoning, while he refers to WP:OR, without understanding that WP allows deductive reasoning within an article such as stating the obvious and, that reliable sources were provided directly supporting the material being presented according to WP:OR, so there is no original research, and what the sources implied was explained using basic logic and common sense and, not by combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion according to WP:ORIGINALSYN, so there is no synthesis of published material as he accuses me of. The point is that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious, as explained here. Thank you 98.217.155.45 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your last edit summary states "There is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious". Actually, there is. Read WP:V.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To Lugnuts: WP:V was the first thing I took into account when posting. Read here and, regarding the obvious, here which is exactly the case with the reverts we are talking about. Thanks 98.217.155.45 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a topic area where that applies. We're not discussing the colour of the sky or the sun here; not many people (in relative terms) even know what Balsam of Peru is, and that includes myself. Everything needs verifying as a result. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Two reverts in over a month is not edit warring. only (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Marielopez124 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Selena. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

New editor insists on reverting and re-adding unreferenced content while not using edit summary and after receiving numerous warnings on their talk page over the course of several days and by various editors. Has been asked to review the Manual of Style, as well. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User also inserts unsourced content and fancruft persistently.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More diffs of continued edit warring at the Selena article:, , . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User has also made similar edits on the Jenni Rivera article by changing her net worth without backing it up with a source. Said actions had caused the article to be protected until the user understand what she is doing wrong. Erick (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In spite of a reasonable request by EdJohnston for the reported editor to participate in this report and to stop edit warring, they continue to edit war. The following is just the latest of several instances since Ed left his message on the user's talk page: .  At this point I think it's safe to say the editor has no intention of stopping their edit-warring behavior, lack of communication, and re-adding of content not referenced.  It's now definitely surpassed the disruptive threshold.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Vandalizing Another's User Page User:Marielopez124 just vandalized my User Page here and here . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone hurry up and block this user already. They have been warned an excessive number of times. Vrac (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring and blanking others' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Saya Ganteng reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:20, 20 December 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 13:01, 22 December 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 07:58, 25 December 2014


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Keeps on changing information not as shown in the source, specifically for the Asia Club Rangking section. Source is this. Warned already in the revert summary. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to decline this right now as I don't see any discussions had with this user aside from edit summaries. I'm not ready to block based on 3 reverts in 5 days.  Please try to engage with/discuss the issue rather than warning through edit summaries.  I'll let other admins take a look and act, but I'm passing on action right now.  only (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Declined. But the parties should use the talk page before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:66.27.183.38 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 4)  "/* External links */"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* External links */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on UB40. (TW)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 2 groups recording as UB 40 */"


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced category. I have attempted discussion but to no avail. Egghead06 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconding the report, and adding another instance. This IP has 6 edits, and each one is adding UB40 to the category "British boy bands." Clearest 3RR violation I've ever seen. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Dear Iryna, Gogol was by birth Gogol-Yanovsky. His grandfrather Afanasiy was Pole. In Britannica is said, that Gogol was Ukrainian-born Russian writer, but not Ukrainian writer. There is a difference)
 * 2)  (See Britanica: "Ukrainian-born Russian writer")
 * 3)  (See Britannica and don't play with rules)
 * 4)  (See the sources)
 * 5)  (Vandalism. You may not delete information with reliable sources)
 * 6)  (It is an absurd, you ignore reliable sources without any arguments)
 * 7)  (See discution on the page "talk" and stop this circus)
 * 8)  (See talk-page)
 * 1)  (See discution on the page "talk" and stop this circus)
 * 2)  (See talk-page)

According to Ушкуйник, Nikolai Gogol is a Russian writer. According to consensus, he is a Ukranian Russian-language writer.

Comments:

This report is merely to supplement the report above on the same user re the article Cossack Hetmanate. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Actually, it looks like he violated WP:3RR on Cossack Hetmanate immediately after his last block expired (on top of this). -- slakr \ talk / 08:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Boguslavmandzyuk (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:48, 26 December 2014‎ "See discussion"
 * 2) 14:35, 26 December 2014‎ "See discussion"
 * 3) 19:54, 26 December 2014‎ "It is a typical hoax and mystification. See discussion and documents. You will not find such information in historical documents, also, you can see the term Little Russia in sense of Hetmanate from the time of Chmelhytsky to Razumovsky"
 * 4) 21:22, 26 December 2014 "Dear Boguslav, I really don't understand what is wrong with this sources. I can not find (sic!) any sources, which could prove your thesis about Little Russian state. Please, shaw me any sources"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 03:53, 26 December 2014 Attempt to resolve by User:Iryna Harpy
 * 2) 17:20, 26 December 2014 Attempt to resolve by me

Comments:

This user operates a single purpose account focusing on historical subject matter to contrive an All-Russian nation rendering of Eastern Slavic history. The user has broken the 3 Revert Rule immediately after his previous block (regarding the same article) expired.

Editor refuses to accept the consensus at the talk page. Multiple users, including myself, have patiently reasoned with him on the talk page for days. Discussion there falls on deaf ears, as he ignores the sources agreed upon by the consensus, reverting them to his own. The sources have been continuously refuted, which he as cherry picked to follow his WP:POV. Several of his sources actually confirm the majority consensus. Ignores WP:MOS for the WP:Lede. The user has been warned routinely on the article talk page, edit summarizes, as well as his user talk page.--BoguSlav 22:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Request 48-hour temp protect at least. Maybe that will drive them to the talk page rather than the edit summary page. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out they're already talking. Ушкуйник (7 comments) is arguing his point against BoguSlav (6), Irnya Harpy (2), and Faustian (2). Perhaps the 48-hour temp protect will prevent further disruption while they sort out the issues. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He kept going after the last block (3 days ago) without missing a beat. I asked User:Ушкуйник to reply to this complaint. If he continues to edit Wikipedia while making no response here admins should consider an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ed; I accidentally started from the second one and blocked the dude for a week without having seen this/your intervention (I thought that he was referring to the last report that got him blocked; not this report). :P That said, I'm 100% in agreement with indef blocking if he keeps going after this. -- slakr \ talk / 08:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Candidar reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed vandelism. Other editors need to see complete run of edits before critisism, egghead06 did read tunebrokers request for help with html nor to see my full run of edits. Tunebrokers layout is ok now html prob in  text  has been fixed."
 * 2)  "Htmls corrections for the version by tunebroker,  this version is ok and an improvement on original text before tunebroker made edit"
 * 3)  "sources temp removed sources added since"
 * 1)  "sources temp removed sources added since"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Paul Thompson (musician). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Rather than deal with this myself: Editor is changing in conflict with MOS:BLPLEAD and adding unsourced additions to BLP. Needs other editors input. Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in the connections between Candidar and Tunebroker. A lot of overlap here in edits, and Candidar is only a few weeks old.  only (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've opened Sockpuppet investigations/Tunebroker based on these patterns and concerns. only (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; the SPI was confirmed by a checkuser, and I've dropped some appropriate warnings on 's talk page. The edits in question haven't violated WP:3RR yet, and I don't immediately see any extensive history of prior edit warring, so for now, while it's sketchy to say the least, there's not a glaringly severe policy breach from what I can see. If the edit warring continues, however, regardless of sock&mdash;and especially if done with the sock&mdash;this situation escalates, so feel free to re-open or drop another report here should any of that occur. -- slakr \ talk / 08:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Faissaloo reported by User:Only (Result:warned )
Page: Lizard Squad

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Mostly what was being reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:22 26 December 2014
 * 2) 16:26 26 December 2014
 * 3) 16:43 26 December 2014
 * 4) 11:10 27 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by myself at 16:42 and by ThePowerofX at 16:50

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened discussion regarding one edit war and Faissaloo opened one about another edit war.

Comments:

On his talk page, Faissaloo acknowledge the edit war and agreed to stop in favor of discussion. He also mentioned at the article talk page the edit that Dizzyzane made. It seems like restrain was attempted, but he was not able to disengage and insisted on reverting the 4th time; marking that edit as minor and yelling in all caps about it didn't help either. only (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think he read the talk page, it's been like that for more than 12 hours now and he hasn't replied, also I wasn't edit warring with Dizzyzane, I only reverted 1 of his changes. I've only been involved in an edit war with 1 user (I believe it was regarding the FBI stuff), and I stopped when I was warned. Faissaloo (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * THat was your 3rd revert related to the infobox, though. You reverted ThePowerofX twice and Dizzyzane once regarding the infobox (twice to restore when ThePowerofX removed it, once to change the "type" in it).  Then, yes, a second edit war related to the FBI section with myself.  only (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I spoke to ThePowerofX in the talk page and we came to the conclusion that Lizard Squad are a hacker group, he just didn't see the section regarding the Machinima.com hack, so the revert was agreed upon: "I was unaware of the earlier attack on Machinima Inc. That said, I have removed the Lizard avatar from the infobox until a reliable source identifies this as their official logo. — TPX 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)", also, I did not revert the logo, someone else did Faissaloo (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Faissaloo, if you came to an agreement, the other user ought to have self-reverted, instead of you reverting them. I'm not sure you understand what edit warring is. It's defined as repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version (whole or in part) of an article, not as warring with somebody in particular. It doesn't make any difference which other editor you were reverting. You might be blocked right now, if it wasn't for the fact that you're new (I'm discounting your first few edits a while back) and you misunderstood the policy. As it is, I won't block you, and I don't recommend anybody else to do it either. But I'm warning you : don't perform any reverts on Lizard Squad again, at least for the next few days (in fact, you might be safer not editing it at all in 2014, but that's just advice), and do have a good read of the edit warring policy. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Very well then, I won't edit Lizard Squad until 2015, I don't think the article will need me for a while anyways since I've got most of the stuff I know about already in there, thanks! Faissaloo (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you for being so reasonable. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

User:Pincrete reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  m (This is not per talk)
 * 2)  (Undid revision 638482183 they are not classified by ethnicity and general observation is justified)
 * 3) edit by User:Bobrayner  (back to the consensus version)
 * 4)  m (Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments)
 * 5)  (Perhaps someone could explain what is bad faith/discriminatory or 'ethnic' about putting good reviews before bad, or noting that they are all from a single country)
 * 6)  m (Undid revision 639755538 consensus since October … please argue alteration on talk)

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

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

Comments:

This is a clear case when one editor adds controversial content, is opposed by editors, and then with a help of a friend edit-wars intensively in order to win the edit. The edit summary directing opposing editors like myself to the talk-page is clearly provocative as per BRD he is the one that added content and against any consensus is edit-warring to keep it in the article. I know he didn't made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours but it is not a new editor, and he is well aware of the rules, and he just abuses the revert button. I already saw that in that same article they bullied one senior editor, and I decided to intervene and they just keep on pushing the revert button, so I am asking here please here to block the user in order to show him that such behavior is not tolerated here. FkpCascais (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that the user needs to make "more than three reverts within a 24 hour period", meaning 4 or more edits....did the user only make three edits? Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - That's not necessarily true. 3RR is a bright-line rule. It's like a barrier that's a few meters down a forbidden path. You don't have to break through the barrier to be on the path, but it's clear that if you have, you're indisputably where you should not be. The correct procedure is bold, revert, discuss. You boldly make an edit, and when someone reverts your edit you don't revert it back &mdash; you go to the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pincrete is repeatedly adding synthesized material, stating that "positive responses to the film have largely come from Serbian sources," and that "other reviews have largely been negative." Jsharpminor (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week. I have also taken the unusual step of reverting the article to the version without the uncited ethnic comments. If during the lock, editors in favor of adding them back can find reliable sources to back them up, fine. Without that, they cannot remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at this, having previously given a final WP:ARBMAC warning to those involved at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive255. (I'll also note that this article, and/or the behaviour of its two or three most prolific editors, has been cropping up every few months at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for years.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've dropped an "official" DS warning on a few talk pages just in case they didn't get the memo the first time around (also because it adds an edit-filter tag so that other admins know down the line without having to dig into page history :P). -- slakr  \ talk / 09:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:FkpCascais Re your remark: "This is a clear case when one editor adds controversial content, is opposed by editors, and then with a help of a friend edit-wars intensively in order to win the edit", firstly 'editors' is plural, until yesterday when YOU made an edit, only ONE editor has opposed the content, others have supported it. If the wording is inappropriate or 'synth', then let us discuss it on talk, which I will do when I have time over the next few days. You have failed to inform or even mention the other editor (whom I was reverting), failed to inform Bobrayner and failed to attempt to resolve this on talk, but brought the matter here immediately after your own edit was reverted. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I have already said (on talk), that if present wording is 'synth', I am happy to change it. However, what exactly is being objected to ? Are you saying that mention of the magazine/website's nationality is ITSELF inappropriate? That seems strange, especially as the film is intimately concerned with FYR and policies of US/UK/EEC. BTW 'reviews' are positive first, negative later, though negative are more numerous and more 'authoritive'. Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod reported by User:Adlhgeo1990 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Reverted 1 edit by 107.179.231.32 (talk): Not in source. (TW)).
 * 2)  (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk): I did, these observations or comments are not made, WP:OR. (TW)).
 * 3)  (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk): These are YOUR conclusions, find a source that states this explicitly. (TW)).
 * 4)  (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk) to last revision by Scalhotrod. (TW)).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see revision history notes

Comments:

Im not sure why, but this user seems to be making it his/her business to revert all my edits. And for tiny little reasons too. I feel that my edits are constructive edits, yet this person seems to think that destroying other peoples work is the best way for him to deal with things. Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , lacks understanding of WP:BLP policy about adding contentious material. What this User has been adding here (the first instance is I believe when not logged in) is their interpretation of raw source material. It is not stated explicitly in the cited reference. If my interpretation is wrong, I am more than willing to apologize, but given that it involves a BLP article, I was erring on the side of caution and on behalf of the site and the subject. I am claiming a 3RR BLP exception. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * May I just point out that, at first blush, this seems like the pot calling the kettle black? Your user history shows that your very first edit was to revert Scalhotrod. In fact, of your 9 edits, 44% of them have been to revert Scalhotrod. Can you say that 44% of Scalhotrod's edits have been to revert you? I think not. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would appear that way, but I made this account earlier today to try and defend my work from this user, I usually browse and edit from various IP addresses, and have been editing Wikipedia for several years anonymously. 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs)

The relevant policies here, and I would strongly suggest both parties review them, can be found here: WP:PS, WP:BLPPRIMARY Jsharpminor (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual relevant question here is this: is Adlhgeo drawing his own conclusions? It's a fact that these emails exist, and have been credited to Evan Spiegel. The only remaining question is if Adlhgeo is doing OR by stating succinctly what is contained in them. I tend to think that, upon reviewing the content and comparing it with PS and BLPPRIMARY, it's probably a tough call. Even so, Adlhgeo, there is no cause to continually restore this material time and again. Take it to the talk page, and no, edit summaries don't count as talk pages. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate your comments and analysis. What I was going by is the usage of "contentious" used in WP:BLP. Its bad enough that there is a "Controversy" section in the subject's article, but I've seen far lesser claims not only deleted, but blocks handed out for their repeated addition when the source does not explicitly or directly support a claim. This is far from an instance of You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , you are that if you violate WP:BLP in any article in the future, you risk being blocked without notice.  is correct in their assessment that you are interpreting primary sources (the e-mails) and then characterizing them. This is impermissible, particularly in an article about a living person. I might add that it doesn't help that the section is sourced to a blog in the first instance. @Scalhotrod, in the future, it is best to claim the BLP exemption in your edit summaries when you get into this kind of battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the advice. The characterization was my assessment from the begining including when I started a discussion on talk page. But this was the first time that the need for WP:3RRBLP exemption presented itself. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance and time, and sorry to have wasted everyone's time here. The BLP exemption was only added by the user after he was busy trying to figure out a way to avoid being blocked. Parts of the article regarding the blog were already there and sourced as such, so I simply expanded by informing people as to the contents of the email without them needing to read the entire article. Best regards to everyone. Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Антон патріот reported by User:Herzen (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:30, 23 December 2014‎
 * 2) 10:18, 24 December 2014
 * 3) 07:02, 25 December 2014
 * 4) 07:24, 25 December 2014
 * 5) 07:42, 25 December 2014‎
 * 6) 08:46, 25 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

In an edit summary, I asked Антон патріот to raise the matter in Talk before reverting again, but he just reverted again. A third editor started a Talk section about this, but Антон патріот has not made any comments in it. If one looks at Антон патріот's global account information, one finds that he is blocked in commons.wikimedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, and www.wikidata.org. – Herzen (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. The blocks on other Wikipedias do suggest that the user is not open to persuasion, so the future is not bright. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , as soon as the block was over, this editor resumed his edit warring. He made the same revert two times within few hours after the block was over . Vanjagenije (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours this time.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny reported by User:Legacypac (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: new article

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Speedy Delete db-person reverted by User:Bbb23
 * 2)  removed sourced facts - reverted by User:Cullen328
 * 3)  removed entire sourced paragraph - reverted by Legacypac
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is under Syrian Civil War 1RR - something the bunny should know about as someone with a very full understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * Clearly this is not an "edit war". Those diffs show unrelated edits. I am happy to discuss them. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was totally unaware (prior to right-now, when I saved this and read above), that "This article is under Syrian Civil War 1RR". I will now look up what that means, and act accordingly. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Note this is a 1RR page. You have not discussed any of your edits. And your last post is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will this discussion include an explanation as to why you tagged an 11-minute-old sourced article (Citing The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph) for speedy deletion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With 7 sources from 6 major news sites, plus two links as unsourced? Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, because this is the 'edit warring' noticeboard, so a possibly-probably-incorrect CSD tagging (since removed) is unlikely to be relevent. Feel free to discuss it if you want, though. As long as you are just not trying to find a reason to persecute me.
 * As I understand Wikipedia, the point of any requests to admins - such as here, or ANI, or whatever - are to prevent disruption. I think, in this case, you are causing disruption through your complaints.
 * Maybe you can stop now, and let us all go about our content editing business? Best, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I will note this user is also edit warring on User talk:Jimbo Wales:. I might have missed some. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 08:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure sounds like edit-warring when you post a bunch of diffs like that...unless people actually look at them. If they do, they'll see 2 attempts at hatting a side-discussion, 1 revert due to the unblock to reinstate the sensible edit, and a couple of edits entirely unrelated, in a separate thread, attempting to DENY.


 * Hence, your post above is entirely misleading.


 * This isn't a case for EW. If you really want to continue to persecute me (which apparently you do, merely because I've edited before and thus surely am a sock), I suggest you try making a case from it.


 * There is no simple reason to block me. And if you do, it really won't help anything.


 * I suggest you stop harassing me, and let me get on with editing articles. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope some admin will take stock of the other report of the same user below, which seems to have more meat to it, because I don't have the time, but I'm closing this one as no violation. It's about all sorts of stuff, that can perhaps be raised elsewhere — the speedy tag was ridiculous, for example — but by no stretch of the imagination has the user edit warred on Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Posting something, such as a speedy tag, which is then reverted by somebody else is not a "revert", for crying out loud, Legacypak. I can't see where the xmas bunny has reverted even once on the Raqqa article, so the 1RR restriction is moot, if it were even a proper complaint for this board, which it isn't. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

User:Mabanc22 reported by User:Snowager (Result: Indeffed as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

He just ignored the 3-revert rule. Snowager (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Macanc22's been blocked for 31 hours by another Admin. I just took related vandal User:Hunty221 to that notice board. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)